Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RENATO C. SALVADOR v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179545 2012-07-11	ENGR. EMELYNE P. CAYETANO-ABAÑO v. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN-CALAMBA PEREZ, J.
A breach of contract may give rise to an award of moral damages only if the party guilty of the breach acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Likewise, a breach of contract may give rise to exemplary damages if the guilty party acted in a wanton, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive or malevolent manner.[154]
	GR No. 172041 2008-12-18	GATEWAY ELECTRONICS CORPORATION v. ASIANBANK CORPORATION VELASCO JR., J.
Geronimo's allegation that an export packing credit loan is separate and distinct from an omnibus credit line is but a bare and self-serving assertion bereft of any factual or legal basis. One who alleges something must prove it: a mere allegation is not evidence.[25] Geronimo has not discharged his burden of proof. His contention cannot be given any weight.
	GR NO. 148491 2007-02-08	SPS. ZACARIAS BACOLOR AND CATHERINE BACOLOR v. BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Verily, petitioners cannot now renege on their obligation to comply with what is incumbent upon them under the loan agreement. A contract is the law between the parties and they are bound by its stipulations. [12]
	GR NO. 168664 2006-05-04	LIGAYA R. MACHICA v. ROOSEVELT SERVICES CENTER CALLEJO, SR., J.
The rule is that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; thus, petitioners were burdened to prove their allegation that respondents dismissed them from their employment.[24] It must be stressed that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing.[25] The rule that the employer bears the burden of proof in illegal dismissal cases finds no application here because the respondents deny having dismissed the petitioners.
	GR NO. 147748 2006-04-19	VISITACION GAVINA GAW v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The resolution of this dispute hinges on the terms and conditions of Pre-Need Agreement No. 93945-5, a contract freely entered into by petitioner and private respondent. The pre-need plan is the law between petitioner and private respondent and they are bound by its stipulations. If the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties, the literal meaning of its stipulations shall control.[12]
	GR NO. 147039 2006-01-27	DBP POOL OF ACCREDITED INSURANCE COMPANIES v. RADIO MINDANAO NETWORK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Anent the letter of a certain Celso Magsilang, who claims to be a member of NPA-NIROC, being an admission of person which is not a party to the present action, is likewise inadmissible in evidence under Section 22, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The reason being that an admission is competent only when the declarant, or someone identified in legal interest with him, is a party to the action.[9] The Court will not disturb these factual findings absent compelling or exceptional reasons. It should be stressed that a review by certiorari under Rule 45 is a matter of discretion. Under this mode of review, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact.[10]