This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-01-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| CROSS-EXAMINATION ATTY. RODRIGUEZ: Q: How about the other officers of the corporation, did you inquire from them? A: Not me personally sir, but my credit collector. Q: Did you inquire from them what was the result of the inquiry? A: This was after the third delivery was made when they said that they have no money to pay that is why they were postponing the payment sir.[62] Sifting through the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence submitted, the evidence of petitioner preponderantly established that there was valid delivery of bulk bags, which gives rise to respondent company's corresponding obligation to pay therefor. By preponderance of evidence is meant that the evidence adduced by one side is, as a whole, superior to that of the other side.[63] Essentially, preponderance of evidence refers to the comparative weight of the evidence presented by the opposing parties.[64] As such, it has been defined as "the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side," and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term greater weight of the evidence or greater weight of the credible evidence.[65] It is proof that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[66] Contrary to respondents' view, We find that petitioner has successfully established its case. Accordingly, We give greater weight, credit and value to its evidence. | |||||