Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

KAR ASIA v. MARIO CORONA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 155034 2008-05-22	VIRGILIO SAPIO v. UNDALOC CONSTRUCTION TINGA, J,
Moreover, absent any evidence to the contrary, good faith must be presumed in this case. Entries in the payroll, being entries in the course of business, enjoy the presumption of regularity under Rule 130, Section 43 of the Rules of Court. Hence, while as a general rule, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer,[20] when fraud is alleged in the preparation of the payroll, the burden of evidence shifts to the employee and it is incumbent upon him to adduce clear and convincing evidence in support of his claim.[21] Unfortunately, petitioner's bare assertions of fraud do not suffice to overcome the disputable presumption of regularity.
	GR NO. 169570 2007-03-02	RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Verily, petitioner did not present any clear, positive or convincing evidence in the present case to support his claims. Indeed, he never presented any evidence at all other than his own self-serving declarations. We must bear in mind the legal dictum that, "he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove."[40]
	GR NO. 159296 2006-02-10	ALLGEMEINE-BAU-CHEMIE PHILS. v. METROPOLITAN BANK CARPIO MORALES, J.
On November 17, 1999, AAHI entered into a contract to sell[4] with petitioner for the purchase of Units 1004 and 1005 covered by CTC No. 54666[5] and CTC No. 54667[6], respectively, and the right to the exclusive use of parking slots P515, P516, P517, and P514 covered by CTC No. 54986,[7] CTC No. 54987,[8] CTC No. 54988,[9] CTC No. 54985[10] (the subject properties), respectively, for a total purchase price of P23,571,280.