This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-03 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This clearly shows that the trial court relied only on the bare allegations of PTEI and BAGCCI that the mortgaged properties were being made to answer for obligations that are not covered by the mortgage and that properties which are not mortgaged are included in PNB's petition for extrajudicial foreclosure. Beyond bare allegations, however, no specific evidence was cited. Thus, the trial court's order granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction had no factual basis. It is elementary that allegations are not proof.[63] Contentions and averments in pleadings do not constitute facts unless they are in the nature of admissions or proven by competent evidence. This becomes more significant in connection with the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in light of the Court's pronouncement in University of the Philippines v. Hon. Catungal, Jr.[64]: The [trial] court must state its own findings of fact and cite the particular law to justify the grant of preliminary injunction. Utmost care in this regard is demanded. x x x.[65] | |||||
|
2002-01-18 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Also, the issue hinges on credibility of witnesses. We have consistently adhered to the rule that where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial court are given the highest degree of respect. These findings will not be ordinarily disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case.[14] It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe "the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths."[15] It had the better opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grueling examination.[16] Inconsistencies or contradictions in the testimony of the victim do not affect the veracity of the testimony if the inconsistencies do not pertain to material points.[17] | |||||
|
2001-07-31 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The well-entrenched rule is that the assessment of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses is entitled to respect.[15] True, the trial court made a categorical statement that the "defense's principal witness, Rodulfo Canonigo suffers from a credibility crisis."[16] However, if we examine the reason behind the trial court's credulity, we find that such is not enough to reject his testimony. To our mind, the inconsistencies in his testimony are on minor matters. Whether or not Rodulfo Cononigo first went to the public market, or to the house of Iñego Largo for lunch is not important. The incident happened not at lunch time but at five o'clock in the afternoon. There is no dispute as to this, so anything that transpired before this is not material. To disregard Rodulfo Canonigo's testimony on this basis would result in injustice. Rodulfo Canonigo has no motive to falsely testify. | |||||