This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that, as in other civil cases, the burden of proof rests upon the party who, as determined by the pleadings or the nature of the case, asserts an affirmative issue.[19] Contentions must be proved by competent evidence and reliance must be had on the strength of the party's own evidence and not upon the weakness of the opponent's defense.[20] This principle holds true especially when the latter has had no opportunity to present evidence because of a default order,[21] as in the present case. The petitioner, as plaintiff below, is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for.[22] The law gives the defendant some measure of protection as the plaintiff must still prove the allegations in the complaint.[23] Favorable relief can be granted only after the court is convinced that the facts proven by the plaintiff warrant such relief.[24] Indeed, the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[25] In addition, this Court, in Otero v. Tan,[26] further elucidated that: While it may be said that by defaulting, the defendant leaves himself at the mercy of the court, the rules nevertheless see to it that any judgment against him must be in accordance with the evidence required by law. The evidence of the plaintiff, presented in the defendant's absence, cannot be admitted if it is basically incompetent. Although the defendant would not be in a position to object, elementary justice requires that only legal evidence should be considered against him. If the same should prove insufficient to justify a judgment for the plaintiff, the complaint must be dismissed. And if a favorable judgment is justifiable, it cannot exceed in amount or be different in kind from what is prayed for in the complaint.[27] | |||||
|
2014-04-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Ultimately, it is respondent's failure to adduce adequate evidence that doomed this case. As stated in Otero v. Tan,[8] "[i]n civil cases, it is a basic rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. The parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defense offered by their opponent."[9] Here, there is to proof that, indeed, the period of around 24 hours from the time notices were disseminated, cannot be considered as reasonable under the circumstances. They failed to present any expert witness to prove that given the medical technology and knowledge at that time in the 1980's, the doctors could or should have waited longer before harvesting the internal organs for transplantation. | |||||
|
2014-03-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| A defendant declared in default loses his or her standing in court.[101] He or she is "deprived of the right to take part in the trial and forfeits his [or her] rights as a party litigant,"[102] has no right "to present evidence [supporting his or her] allegations,"[103] and has no right to "control the proceedings [or] cross-examine witnesses."[104] Moreover, he or she "has no right to expect that [the court] would [act] upon [his or her pleadings]"[105] or that he or she "may [oppose] motions filed against him [or her]."[106] | |||||
|
2014-03-07 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| A defendant declared in default loses his or her standing in court.[101] He or she is "deprived of the right to take part in the trial and forfeits his [or her] rights as a party litigant,"[102] has no right "to present evidence [supporting his or her] allegations,"[103] and has no right to "control the proceedings [or] cross-examine witnesses."[104] Moreover, he or she "has no right to expect that [the court] would [act] upon [his or her pleadings]"[105] or that he or she "may [oppose] motions filed against him [or her]."[106] | |||||