Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FAR EAST BANK v. ESTRELLA O. QUERIMIT

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172161 2011-03-02	SLL INTERNATIONAL CABLES SPECIALIST v. NLRC MENDOZA, J.
As a general rule, on payment of wages, a party who alleges payment as a defense has the burden of proving it.[17] Specifically with respect to labor cases, the burden of proving payment of monetary claims rests on the employer, the rationale being that the pertinent personnel files, payrolls, records, remittances and other similar documents -- which will show that overtime, differentials, service incentive leave and other claims of workers have been paid -- are not in the possession of the worker but in the custody and absolute control of the employer.[18]
	GR No. 161220 2008-07-30	BENATIRO v. HEIRS OF EVARISTO CUYOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.[43] The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations. It cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice. It is the better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to be so, a manifest wrong or injustice would result.[44]
	GR NO. 155785 2007-04-13	SIMPLICIO GALICIA v. LOURDES MANLIQUEZ VDA. DE MINDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand; each case is to be determined according to its particular circumstances.[21] The question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and, being an equitable doctrine, its application is controlled by equitable considerations.[22] It cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud and injustice.[23] It is the better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong or injustice would result.[24]
	GR NO. 153476 2006-09-27	HKO AH PAO v. LAURENCE TING AZCUNA, J.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when adopted and affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal to this Court.[21] This Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the CA.[22] Absent any showing that some facts of certain weight and substance were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case, the Court, as in this case, will uphold the findings of the RTC and the CA.
	GR NO. 124378 2005-03-08	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
From the above-mentioned assignment of errors, petitioner palpably disputes the findings of facts and the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court and later affirmed by respondent court. It is apodictic that in a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised[18] for the reason that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.[19] Corollarily, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court bind this Court when such findings are supported by substantial evidence. In the case at hand, no reversible error could be attributed to the Court of Appeals in espousing conclusions of facts similar to the trial court on petitioner's liability for the damages suffered by private respondents.[20]