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]