Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CONCEPCION CHUA GAW v. SUY BEN CHUA and FELISA CHUA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182864 2015-01-12	EASTERN SHIPPING LINES v. BPI PEREZ, J.
The bills of lading represent the formal expression of the parties' rights, duties and obligations. It is the best evidence of the intention of the parties which is to be deciphered from the language used in the contract, not from the unilateral post facto assertions of one of the parties, or of third parties who are strangers to the contract.[72] Thus, when the terms of an agreement have been reduced to writing, it is deemed to contain all the terms agreed upon and there can be, between the parties and their successors in interest, no evidence of such terms other than the contents of the written agreement.[73]
	GR No. 205879 2014-04-23	SKUNAC CORPORATION v. ROBERTO S. SYLIANTENG PERALTA, J.
The best evidence rule is inapplicable to the present case. The said rule applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry.[15] Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.[16] Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to account for the original.[17] In the instant case, what is being questioned is the authenticity and due execution of the subject deed of sale. There is no real issue as to its contents.
	GR No. 185145 2014-02-05	SPS. VICENTE AFULUGENCIA AND LETICIA AFULUGENCIA v. METROPOLITAN BANK DEL CASTILLO, J.
Besides, since the calling party is deemed bound by the adverse party's testimony,[33] compelling the adverse party to take the witness stand may result in the calling party damaging its own case. Otherwise stated, if a party cannot elicit facts or information useful to its case through the facility of written interrogatories or other mode of discovery, then the calling of the adverse party to the witness stand could only serve to weaken its own case as a result of the calling party's being bound by the adverse party's testimony, which may only be worthless and instead detrimental to the calling party's cause.
	GR No. 175851 2012-07-04	EMILIA LIM v. MINDANAO WINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Lastly, we see no reason to disturb the ruling of the CA anent Emilia's civil liability. As may be recalled, the CA affirmed the lower courts' factual findings on the matter. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, will not be disturbed.[32] Also, "[i]t is a settled rule that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of [Court], only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court."[33] Moreover, "it is well to remember that a check may be evidence of indebtedness. A check, the entries of which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction."[34] While Emilia is acquitted of violations of BP 22, she should nevertheless pay the debt she owes.
	GR No. 179470 2010-04-20	NISSAN NORTH EDSA v. UNITED PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS DETECTIVE PEREZ, J.
Nissan's reliance on the best evidence rule is misplaced. The best evidence rule is the rule which requires the highest grade of evidence to prove a disputed fact.[29] However, the same applies only when the contents of a document are the subject of the inquiry.[30] In this case, the contents of the service contract between Nissan and United have not been put in issue. Neither United nor Nissan disputes the contents of the service contract; as in fact, both parties quoted and relied on the same provision of the contract (paragraph 17) to support their respective claims and defenses. Thus, the best evidence rule finds no application here.