Late Filing of Labor Complaint

The filing  of the complaint one  year  after his  alleged  termination,  coupled  with  the  clear  tenor  or his resignation  letter  should  be  taken  to  mean  that  petitioner's  filing  or the illegal dismissal case was a mere afterthought. The filing of the complaint one  year  after his  alleged  termination,  coupled  with  the  clear  tenor  or his resignation  letter  should  be  taken  to  mean  that  petitioner's  filing  or the illegal dismissal case was a mere afterthought (Rolando L. Cervantes Vs. PAL Maritime Corporation and/or Western Shipping agencies, Pte., Ltd., G.R. No. 175209. January 16, 2013).

Decision of Judge

It bears stressing that in this jurisdiction there is a disputable presumption that the trial court’s decision is rendered by the judge in the regular performance of his official duties.  While the said presumption is only disputable, it is satisfactory unless contradicted or overcame by other evidence.  Encompassed in this presumption of regularity is the presumption that the trial court judge, in resolving the case and drafting the decision, reviewed, evaluated, and weighed all the evidence on record.  That the said trial court judge is not the same judge who heard the case and received the evidence is of little consequence when the records and transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) are complete and available for consideration by the former, just like in the present case.

Irrefragably, the fact that the judge who penned the trial court’s decision was not the same judge who heard the case and received the evidence therein does not render the findings in the said decision erroneous and unreliable.  While the conduct and demeanor of witnesses may sway a trial court judge in deciding a case, it is not, and should not be, his only consideration.  Even more vital for the trial court judge’s decision are the contents and substance of the witnesses’ testimonies, as borne out by the TSNs, as well as the object and documentary evidence submitted and made part of the records of the case (Dr. Genevieve L. Huang Vs. Philippine Hoteliers, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 180440. December 5, 2012).

Negligence; Res Ipsa Loquitor

As mentioned above, the requisites for the application of the res ipsa loquitur rule are the following: (1) the accident was of a kind which does not ordinarily occur unless someone is negligent; (2) the instrumentality or agency which caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the person charged with negligence; and (3) the injury suffered must not have been due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the person injured.

In the instant case, the Fuzo Cargo Truck would not have had hit the rear end of the Mitsubishi Galant unless someone is negligent. Also, the Fuzo Cargo Truck was under the exclusive control of its driver, Reyes. Even if respondents avert liability by putting the blame on the Nissan Bus driver, still, this allegation was self-serving and totally unfounded. Finally, no contributory negligence was attributed to the driver of the Mitsubishi Galant. Consequently, all the requisites for the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur are present, thereby creating a reasonable presumption of negligence on the part of respondents (Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. Vs. Rodelio Alberto and Enrico Alberto Reyes, G.R. No. 194320. February 1, 2012).

Negligence In Maintenance of Property

As petitioner itself points out, it owns the equipment relevant to the handling and storage of gasoline, including the gasoline pumps and the underground tank. It is also responsible for the delivery of the petroleum to the dealer. The incident occurred at the time the petroleum was being unloaded to the underground tank petitioner owned. Aside from failing to show the actual cause of the fire, it also failed to rebut the presumption that it was negligent in the maintenance of its properties and in the conduct of its business.

To reiterate, it was not able to prove the proximate cause of the fire, only the involvement of the tank truck and the underground storage tank. Notably, both pieces of equipment were under its responsibility. Absent any positive determination of the cause of the fire, a presumption exists that there was something wrong with the truck or the underground storage tank, or both (Petron Corporation Vs. Sps. Cesar Jovero and Erma F. Cudilla, et al., G.R. No. 151038. January 18, 2012).

Silence in Administrative Case

Ancheta and Hufana’s refusal to face head-on the charges against them is contrary to the principle that the first impulse of an innocent person, when accused of wrongdoing, is to express his/her innocence at the first opportune time. Ancheta and Hufana’s silence and non-participation in the present administrative proceedings, despite due notice and directives of this Court for them to submit documents in their defense, i.e., a written explanation, an accounting, and missing receipts, strongly indicate their guilt (Re: Report on financial audit conducted at MCTC, Santiago-San Esteban, Ilocos Sur, A.M. No. P-11-2950. January 17, 2011).

Delay in Payment of Insurance Claim

Under Section 244, a prima facie evidence of unreasonable delay in payment of the claim is created by the failure of the insurer to pay the claim within the time fixed in Section 243 (New World International Development (Phils.), Inc. Vs. Nyk-FilJapan Shipping Corp., et al./New World International Development(Phils.), Inc. Vs. Seaboard-Eastern Insurance Co., Inc.,
G.R. No. 171468/G.R. No. 174241. August 24, 2011).

Theft

A person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act; otherwise, that thing which a person possesses, or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court

In Litton Mills, Inc. v. Sales, we said that for such presumption to arise, it must be proven that: (a) the property was stolen; (b) it was committed recently; (c) that the stolen property was found in the possession of the accused; and (d) the accused is unable to explain his possession satisfactorily(People of the Philippines Vs. Renato Lagat y Gawan, a.k.a. Renat Gawan and James Palalay y Villarosa, G.R. No. 187044. September 14, 2011).