DOCTRINES/PRINCPLES: LTL Cases Philippine British Assurance vs. Intermediate Appelate Court The rule, founded on logic, is a colorally principle that general words and phrases in a statute should ordinarly be accorded their natural and general significance. People vs. Cabral In reiterating the rules outlining the duties of a judge in determining the merit of an application for bail, it is observed that respondent judge did disregard certain pieces of evidence for the prosecution which should have been considered. This is a clear case of non sequitur where the order of the respondent judge was not arrived at as a product of a logical process as prescribed by the Rules. People vs. Escobar The Supreme Court said, “Every decision of a court of record shall clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based” and that the decision of the lower court failed on this standard. “The inadequacy stems primarily from the respondent’s judge tendency to generalize and to form conclusions without detailing the facts from which conclusion are deduced. Thus, he concluded that the mataerial allegations of the Amendend Information were the facts without specifying which of the testimonies or exhibits supported this conclusion. He rejected the testimony of accused appelant Escober because it awas allegedly replete with contradictions without pointing out what there contradictions consist of or what “vital details” Escober shoud have recalled as a credible witness. Gamido vs. CA The High Court noted that the witness, owing to his long position as custodian of the records of Malacanang Palace, is very well familiar not only of the signature of the sitting president but the signatures of previous presidents he had the privilege of serving under. It is also declared that under the Rules of Court, it is not required that the person identifying the handwriting of another must have seen the latter write the document or sign it, but it is enough, if the witness has seen purporting to be the subject’s upon which it has acted or been charged. Penalber vs. Ramos Burden oif proof is the duty of any party to present evidence to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by the law, which is preponderance of evidence in civil case. MOF Company vs. Shin Yang Brokerage Basic is the rule in evidence the burden of proof lies upon him who asserts it, not upon who denies, since by the nature of thinfs, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof of it. VSD Realty vs. Uniwide Sales In civil cases, the specific rule as to the burden of proof is that the plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the complainant which are denied by the answer; and the defendant has the burden of proving the material allegations in his answer, which sets up the new matter as a defense. Monticalbo vs. Maraya In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant. Cereno vs. CA In medical negligences, it is settled that the complainant has the burden of establishing breach of duty on the part of the doctors or surgeons. It must be proven the such breach of duty has a causal connection to the resulting death of the patient. Claravall vs. Lim It is settled that the party alleging a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence. Aba vs. De Guzman According to the equipoise doctrine, when the evidence of the parties are evenly balanced or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the decision should be against the party with the burden of proof. OCA vs. Gutierrez The burden of proof is upon the party who alleges the truth of his claim or defense or any fact in issue. Page 1 of 3 Country Bnakers Insurance Corporation vs. Lagman The best evidence rule as encapsulated in Rule 130, Sec 3, of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the inquiry. When the issues is only as to whether such documenta was actually executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible. Moreover, under the best evidence rule, the original document must be produced whenever its contents are the subject of inquiry; A photocopy, being a mere secondary evidence, is not admissible unless it is shown that the original is unavailable. Gaw vs. Chua Any other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need to acount for the original. Moreover, production of the original may be dispensed with, in the trial court’s discretion, whenever the opponent does not bona fide dispute the contents of the document and no other useful purpose will be served by requiring production. Ramos vs. Obispo Note, however, that preponderance of evidence is 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” People vs. De Guzman Evidence is deemed admissible if it is relevant to the issue and more importantly, if it is not excluded by provision of law or by the Rules of Court. As to relevance, such evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence and non-existence. Evidence to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind. People vs. Taguibaya Testimony is generally confined to a personal knowledge, and therefore excludes hearsay. Thus, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided under the Rules of Court. The direct appreciation of testimonial demeanor during examination, veracity, sincerity, and candor was foremost the trial court’s domain, not that of a reviewing court that had no similar access to the witness at the time they testified. People vs. Ochoa This is known as the hearsay rule. The law, however, provides for specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. One of the exceptions is the entries in official records made in the performance of duty by a public officer. In other words, official entries are admissible in evidence regardless whether the officer or person who made them was presented and testified in court, since these entries are considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Other recognized reason for this exception are necessity and trustworthiness. The necesity consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of requiring the official’s attendnace as a witness to testify the innumerable transactions in the course of his duty. This will also unduly hamper public business. The trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty by a public officer. People vs. Malngan The credibility given by trial courts to prosecution witness is an important aspect of evidence which appelate courts can rely on because of its unique opportunity to observe them, particularly their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, during the direct and cross-examination by counsels. People vs. Astudillo This is because the trial judge has unique opportunity, denied to the appelate court, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under direct and cross-examination. Santiago vs. Valenzuela Stare decisis et non quieta movere. Srand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled. Lambino vs. Comelec The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere translates “stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled.” As used in our jurisprudence, it means that once this court has laid down a principle of law as applicable Page 2 of 3 to a certain state of facts, it would adhere to that principle and apply it to future cases in which the facts are substantially the same as in the earlier controversy. There is considerable literature about whether this doctrine of stare decisis is a good or bad one, whether this doctrine is usually justified by arguments which focus on the desirability of stability and certainty in the law and also by notions of justice and fairness. It would be a gross injustice to decide alternate cases on opposite princoples. Fermin vs. People It is based on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further argument. Ting vs. Velez-Ting The doctrine of adherence to precedents or stare decisis was applied by the English courts and was later adopted by the United States. Chong vs. Secretary of Labor This is the doctrine that, when a court has once laid down a principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties and properties are the same. Follow past precedents and do not distrub what has been settled. Matters alread decided on the merits cannot be subject of litigation again. But note that this rule does nor elicit blind adherence to the precedents. Nielson and Co. vs. Lepanto Consolidated Mining The rule of stare decisis cannot be invoked when there is no analogy between the material facts of the decision relied upon and those of the instant case. Republic vs. Nillas The doctrine of stare decisis compels respect for settled jurisprudence, especially absent any compelling argument to do otherwise. Pesca vs. Pesca The high court found no merit in the petition. Stated Art 8, NCC. Legis interpretado legis vim obtinet – that the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law. It is only when a prior ruling of this Court finds itself later overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of the parties who have reliaed on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of “lex prospicit, non respicit”. Page 3 of 3