This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In labor cases, as in all cases which require the presentation and weighing of evidence, the basic rule is that the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.[47] In particular, in a case of claims for disability benefits, the onus probandi falls on the seafarer as claimant to establish his claim with the right quantum of evidence; it cannot rest on speculations, presumptions or conjectures.[48] Such party has the burden of proving the said assertion with the quantum of evidence required by law which, in a case such as this of a claim for disability benefits arising from one's employment as a seafarer, is substantial evidence.[49] Substantial evidence is not one that establishes certainty beyond reasonable doubt, but only "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion," even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[50] It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.[51] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Clearly, the RTC exceeded its authority when it insisted on applying its own construal of the dispositive portion of the CA Decision when its terms are explicit and need no further interpretation. It would also be inequitable for the petitioners to pay and for the respondents, who did not appeal the CA decision or questioned the deletion of the 12% per annum interest, to receive more than what was awarded by the CA. The assailed RTC order of execution dated December 21, 2009 and the alias writ of execution dated May 17, 2010 are, therefore, void. Time and again, it has been ruled that an order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment, or for that matter, exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.[45] | |||||
|
2012-11-13 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Considering the finality of this Court's 23 November 2005 Decision affirming the Sandiganbayan's 14 March 2002 Decision in Civil Case No. 0022, we find that the Estate and HMHMI correctly argue against the disposition of the proceeds of TDC Nos. 162828 and 162829 in favor of the Republic by means of the writ of execution the latter sought a quo. Having been sourced from the disposition of said Liwayway shares, the proceeds of the subject TDCs cannot be released in favor of the Republic without varying the decision sought to be executed which, as admitted, did not make any determination regarding the validity of the ownership of the same shares and/or the legality of the transfer thereof. It is a matter of settled legal principle that a writ of execution must adhere to every essential particular of the judgment sought to be executed.[64] The writ cannot vary or go beyond the terms of the judgment and must conform to the dispositive portion thereof.[65] Time and again, it has been ruled that an order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or, for that matter, exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity.[66] | |||||