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).
