Scribd
Upload
118 views1 page

Marubeni Corporation, Et Al. vs. Felix Lirag G.R. No. 130998, August 10, 2001 Pardo, J.: Doctrine

Respondent filed a case against petitioners claiming they owed him commission from a consultancy agreement. Respondent alleged they had an oral agreement but petitioners did not present any written agreement. Both lower courts ruled in favor of respondent. However, the Supreme Court ruled the evidence was not clear that an agreement existed. The party with the burden of proof, in this case respondent, needs to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence. But the evidence was not enough to solidly conclude a consultancy agreement was made between the parties. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

Uploaded by

Tootsie Guzma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
118 views1 page

Marubeni Corporation, Et Al. vs. Felix Lirag G.R. No. 130998, August 10, 2001 Pardo, J.: Doctrine

Respondent filed a case against petitioners claiming they owed him commission from a consultancy agreement. Respondent alleged they had an oral agreement but petitioners did not present any written agreement. Both lower courts ruled in favor of respondent. However, the Supreme Court ruled the evidence was not clear that an agreement existed. The party with the burden of proof, in this case respondent, needs to prove their case by a preponderance of evidence. But the evidence was not enough to solidly conclude a consultancy agreement was made between the parties. Therefore, the Supreme Court denied the petition.

Uploaded by

Tootsie Guzma
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Marubeni Corporation, et al. vs.

Felix Lirag
G.R. No. 130998, August 10, 2001
Pardo, J.:

Doctrine:
In deciding this appeal, we rely on the rule that a party who has the burden of proof in a civil
case must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. When the evidence of the parties
is in equipoise, or when there is a doubt as to where the preponderance of evidence lies, the
party with the burden of proof fails and the petition must thus be denied.

Facts:
Respondent filed a case for specific performance against petitioners stating that they owe him
his consultancy commission. Respondent alleged that he and the petitioners entered into a
consultancy agreement for several projects in the Philippines and that they promised to pay
him his commission but despite demands, they did not. Respondent, during trial, presented
witnesses who affirmed his claims and he stated that the consultancy agreement was not put to
writing because of mutual trust between the parties.

Both the RTC and CA ruled in favour of respondent and ordered petitioners to pay him his
commission plus damages.

Issue:
Whether there was a consultancy agreement.

Ruling:
None. In deciding this appeal, we rely on the rule that a party who has the burden of proof in a
civil case must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence.  When the evidence of the
parties is in equipoise, or when there is a doubt as to where the preponderance of evidence
lies, the party with the burden of proof fails and the petition must thus be denied.

An assiduous scrutiny of the testimonial and documentary evidence extant leads us to the
conclusion that the evidence could not support a solid conclusion that a consultancy
agreement, oral or written, was agreed between petitioners and respondent. Respondent
attempted to fortify his own testimony by presenting several corroborative witnesses.
However, what was apparent in the testimonies of these witnesses was the fact that they
learned about the existence of the consultancy agreement only because that was what
respondent told them.

In civil cases, he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it; a mere allegation is not
evidence. He must establish his cause by a preponderance of evidence, which respondent failed
to establish in the instant case.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy