Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ASIA TRADERS INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 162868 2008-07-14	RODOLFO D. GARCIA v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES REYES, R.T., J.
Preliminarily, We note that the instant petition was filed beyond the requested extension period. Petitioner received a copy of the CA March 17, 2004 Resolution on March 26, 2004. He had until April 10, 2004 to file this petition. He asked the Court that he be allowed until April 25, 2004 to file the same,[21] but failed to comply when he filed the petition only on April 26, 2004. Nevertheless, inasmuch as the delay is not substantial, the greater interest of justice would be served if this petition is adjudicated on its merits. Sound policy dictates that it is far better to dispose of cases on the merits, rather than on a technicality as the latter approach may result in injustice.[22]
	GR No. 160898 2008-06-27	DAVID SIA TIO v. LORENZO ABAYATA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Nonetheless, the Court may disregard such flaw[11] since no prejudice will be caused to said parties, as they were original parties before the RTC;[12] and the Rural Bank, which was furnished all the pleadings and resolutions in this petition, even filed its own Comment[13] and Memorandum[14] before the Court.
	GR NO. 152613 & NO. 152628 2006-06-23	APEX MINING CO. v. SOUTHEAST MINDANAO GOLD MINING CORP. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(4) the agent acts within the scope of his authority. The existence of the elements of agency is a factual matter that needs to be established or proven by evidence. The burden of proving that agency is extant in a certain case rests in the party who sets forth such allegation. This is based on the principle that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it.[31] It must likewise be emphasized that the evidence to prove this fact must be clear, positive and convincing.[32]
	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. 155059 2005-04-29	AMERICAN WIRE v. AMERICAN WIRE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Assuming arguendo that the mode of appeal taken by the petitioner is improper, there is no question that the Supreme Court has the discretion to dismiss it if it is defective. However, sound policy dictates that it is far better to dispose the case on the merits, rather than on technicality.[18]
	GR NO. 154064 2005-02-28	SPS. ERNESTO GUTIERREZ AND FELICISIMA B. GUTIERREZ v. PASCUAL B. CABRERA QUISUMBING, J.
Formal defects in petitions are not uncommon. The Court has encountered previous petitions for review that erroneously impleaded the Court of Appeals. In those cases, the Court merely called the petitioners' attention to the defects and proceeded to resolve the case on their merits.[31] The Court finds no reason why it should not afford the same liberal treatment in this case. While the Court has unquestionably the discretion to dismiss the appeal for being defective, sound policy dictates that it is far better to dispose of cases on the merits, rather than on technicality as the latter approach may result in injustice.[32] This is in accordance with Rule 1, Section 6[33] which encourages a reading of the procedural requirements in a manner that will help secure and not defeat justice.[34]