The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the writs of amparo and habeas data were promulgated to ensure the protection of the people’s rights to life, liberty and security.^[57] The rules on these writs were issued in light of the alarming prevalence of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.^[58] The Rule on the Writ of Amparo took effect on 24 October 2007,^[59] and the Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data on 2 February 2008.^[60]

The writ of amparo is an extraordinary and independent remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as it partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner.^[61] It is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence, or administrative responsibility requiring substantial evidence that will require full and exhaustive proceedings.^[62] Rather, it serves both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.^[63] It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation of impunity in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitates the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequent investigation and action.^[64]

Meanwhile, the writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to protect a person’s right to control information regarding oneself, particularly in instances where such information is being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends.^[65] As an independent and summary remedy to protect the right to privacy – especially the right to informational privacy^[66] – the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeas data does not entail any finding of criminal, civil or administrative culpability. If the allegations in the petition are proven through substantial evidence, then the Court may (a) grant access to the database or information; (b) enjoin the act complained of; or (c) in case the database or information contains erroneous data or information, order its deletion, destruction or rectification.[

[ G.R. No. 191805, November 15, 2011 ]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE WRIT OF AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA IN FAVOR OF NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, NORIEL H. RODRIGUEZ, PETITIONER, VS. GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, GEN. VICTOR S. IBRADO, PDG JESUS AME VERSOZA, LT. GEN. DELFIN BANGIT, MAJ. GEN. NESTOR Z. OCHOA, P/CSUPT. AMETO G. TOLENTINO, P/SSUPT. JUDE W. SANTOS, COL. REMIGIO M. DE VERA, AN OFFICER NAMED MATUTINA, LT. COL. MINA, CALOG, GEORGE PALACPAC UNDER THE NAME “HARRY,” ANTONIO CRUZ, ALDWIN “BONG” PASICOLAN AND VINCENT CALLAGAN, RESPONDENTS.

The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon erring members of the bench. At the same time, however, the Court should not hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. This Court could not be the instrument that would destroy the reputation of any member of the bench, by pronouncing guilt on mere speculation.

The charge of manifest bias and partiality against respondent judge is bereft of factual support.  As held in Mamerto Maniquiz Foundation, Inc. v. Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro:^[9]
In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of establishing, by substantial evidence, the averments of his complaint.  Notatu dignum is the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge's functions, hence bias, prejudice and even undue interest cannot be presumed, specially weighed against a judge's sacred allegation under oath of office to administer justice without respect to any person and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.  In a long line of cases decided by this Court, it was held that bare allegations of bias are not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor.  In Sinnott v. Barte, it was further held, mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough.  There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself.  Although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge. (Emphasis supplied)

ROVINNA DE JESUS ELEFANT, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE SOCORRO B. INTING AND BRANCH CLERK OF COURT SHIRLEY M. PAGALILAUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, MANILA, RESPONDENTS.

the finding of probable cause of the Judge may be set aside and the search warrant issued by him based on his finding may be quashed; the evidence seized by the police officers based on said search warrant may be suppressed if the accused presents clear and convincing evidence that the police officers and/or a government informant made a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in said affidavit/deposition or testimony which is essential or necessary to a showing of probable cause

It bears stressing that the policemen saw to it that the search of petitioner's house was conducted with the assistance and in the presence of Barangay Captain Mangaliag and Kagawad Garcia.  They testified that the regulated drugs confiscated by the policemen were found in the searched premises.  Petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the policemen and the barangay officials had any improper motive to frame her and falsely ascribe to her the crime of violating R.A. No. 6425, as amended.
x x x
However, the finding of probable cause of the Judge may be set aside and the search warrant issued by him based on his finding may be quashed; the evidence seized by the police officers based on said search warrant may be suppressed if the accused presents clear and convincing evidence that the police officers and/or a government informant made a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in said affidavit/deposition or testimony which is essential or necessary to a showing of probable cause.  Such evidence must focus on the state of mind of the affiants/deponents that he was conscious of the falsity of his assertion or representation.^[83]  The requirement that a search warrant not issue but upon probable cause would be reduced to a nullity if a police officer and his informant are able to use deliberately falsehood allegations to demonstrate probable cause and, having misled the Judge, was able to remain confident that the ploy succeeded.^[84]  However, innocent and negligent omissions or misrepresentation of a police officer or government informant will not invalidate a search warrant.  And even if the police officer or government informant may have deliberately made a falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in his or her affidavit/deposition but the remaining portions thereof are sufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant will not be quashed for lack of probable cause.<sup>[85]

x x  x</sup>
 The well-entrenched rule is that the findings of the trial court affirmed by the appellate court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by this Court, absent clear and convincing evidence that the tribunals ignored, misconstrued or misapplied facts and circumstances of substances such that, if considered, the same will warrant the modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.  In this case, petitioner failed to establish any such circumstance.

[ G.R. NO. 168773, October 27, 2006 ]

ELIZA ABUAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 

"clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases.

An extradition proceeding being sui generis, the standard of proof required in granting or denying bail can neither be the proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases nor the standard of proof of preponderance of evidence in civil cases. While administrative in character, the standard of substantial evidence used in administrative cases cannot likewise apply given the object of extradition law which is to prevent the prospective extraditee from fleeing our jurisdiction. In his Separate Opinion in Purganan, then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, proposed that a new standard which he termed "clear and convincing evidence" should be used in granting bail in extradition cases. According to him, this standard should be lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt but higher than preponderance of evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court.

In this case, there is no showing that private respondent presented evidence to show that he is not a flight risk. Consequently, this case should be remanded to the trial court to determine whether private respondent may be granted bail on the basis of "clear and convincing evidence."

GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION, REPRESENTED BY THE PHILIPPINE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PETITIONER, VS. HON. FELIXBERTO T. OLALIA, JR. AND JUAN ANTONIO MUÑOZ, RESPONDENTS.

On the issue of partiality and manifest bias, the rule is that mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. Clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge is required.

On the issue of partiality and manifest bias, the rule is that mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. Clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge is required.  The burden to prove that respondent Judge committed the acts complained of rest on the complainant.  It is complainant's asseveration that respondent Judge was protecting the defendants who are rich and influential; that some of them are townmates of the respondent judge; and they were sometimes seen together. These allegations remain as mere allegations without any evidence to support them. Complainant averred that her sister and relatives saw the respondent Judge with the defendants talking and eating in a restaurant.  However, said sister and relatives were not presented to testify on that allegation.  Mere allegation of partiality and bias without more cannot discharge the burden bestowed upon the complainant to prove respondent Judge's partiality and bias. Charges against any member of the judiciary must be supported at least by substantial evidence.  Applying the foregoing principles to this case, the undersigned finds that the charges of the complainant against respondent Judge for partiality and bias failed to measure up to the yardstick of substantial evidence.

[ A.M. No. MTJ-06-1631 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1744-MTJ), September 30, 2008 ]

FENINA R. SANTOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ERASTO D. TANCIONGCO, RESPONDENT.

Third, we cannot likewise agree with the private respondents' theory that the quantum of evidence necessary to overturn the factual findings of the COMELEC should be clear and convincing evidence, as it misappreciates that we nullified the COMELEC's findings because it used the wrong considerations in arriving at its conclusions.

The private respondents fail to realize that the important considerations in the present case relate to questions bearing on the cancellation of the COC that they prayed for; the main critical points are the alleged deliberate misrepresentation by Mitra and the underlying question of his residency in Aborlan, Palawan.

 x x x x

If there is any similarity at all in Velasco and the present case, that similarity is in the recognition in both cases of the rule of law.  In Velasco, we recognized - based on the law - that a basic defect existed prior to his candidacy, leading to his disqualification and the vice-mayor-elect's assumption to the office. In the present case, we recognize the validity of Mitra's COC, again on the basis of substantive and procedural law, and no occasion arises for the vice-governor-elect to assume the gubernatorial post.^[23]

 

ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ANTONIO V. GONZALES AND ORLANDO R. BALBON, JR., RESPONDENTS.

In this regard, it may be worth to emphasize that only substantial evidence, not necessarily clear and convincing evidence, is required.

The seeming discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses (one saying the money was wrapped in paper, the other, that the money was in an envelope; neither testified on the specific date of the exaction), refers only to minor details. Perhaps it would be different if the variance refers to essential points, e.g., whether the amount of P30,000.00 was actually paid by petitioners to private respondents. Consequently, whether the money was wrapped in paper, or placed in an envelope, or unwrapped, or whether the parties could not recall when the payment was effected is unimportant. After all, the money could have been wrapped in paper and placed in the envelope, or placed in the envelope without being wrapped, or wrapped with use of an unpasted envelope that appeared to be the envelope itself. In either case, petitioners could have viewed them differently; but the difference is ultimately inconsequential. The crucial point to consider is that the petitioners categorically and unequivocally testified that respondents collected from them the amount of P30,000.00 as their placement fees and that they paid the amount demanded. In this regard, it may be worth to emphasize that only substantial evidence, not necessarily clear and convincing evidence, is required. Moreover, when confronted with conflicting assertions, the rule that "as between a positive and categorical testimony which has a ring of truth on one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former is generally held to prevail x x x x"^[17] applies.

SPOUSES VICENTE AND GLORIA MANALO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. NIEVES ROLDAN-CONFESOR, IN HER CAPACITY AS UNDERSECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, JOSE SARMIENTO AS POEA ADMINISTRATOR, CAREER PLANNERS SPECIALISTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND SPOUSES VICTOR, AND ELNORA FERNANDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

In the absence of clearly convincing evidence, the validity of election returns must be upheld

We reiterate settled rulings on the appreciation of election returns in this case, to wit, (1) before a certificate of votes may be used to prove tampering, alteration, falsification or any other anomaly committed in the election returns, it must comply with Sections 16 and 17 of Republic Act (RA) No. 6646,^[1] (2) the exclusion of election returns on the ground of tampering must be approached with extreme caution and must be based on clear and convincing evidence, and (3) in case of discrepancy in the other authentic copies of an election return, the procedure in Section 236 of the Omnibus Election Code^[2] (OEC) should be followed. For failure to comply with these rules and principles, we hold that the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and accordingly order it to rectify the unjustified disenfranchisement of voters in this case.

x x x

 We find the manner in which the COMELEC excluded the subject returns to be fatally flawed. In the absence of clearly convincing evidence, the validity of election returns must be upheld.^[30] A conclusion that an election return is obviously manufactured or false and consequently should be disregarded in the canvass must be approached with extreme caution and only upon the most convincing proof.^[31] Corrolarily, any plausible explanation, one which is acceptable to a reasonable man in the light of experience and of the probabilities of the situation, should suffice to avoid outright nullification, which results in disenfranchisement of those who exercised their right of suffrage.^[32] As will be discussed shortly, there is a patent lack of basis for the COMELEC's findings that the subject returns were tampered. In disregard of the principle requiring "extreme caution" before rejecting election returns, the COMELEC proceeded with undue haste in concluding that the subject returns were tampered. This is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

ROSE MARIE D. DOROMAL, PETITIONER, VS. HERNAN G. BIRON AND COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENTS.

the presumption of innocence mandated by the Constitution that can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence establishing the guilt of the accused.

The tendency of the trial court in rape cases is to give credence to the complainant's testimony on the theory that she would not deliberately expose herself to public ridicule and to searching questions about the embarrassing details of her claimed outrage unless she was really telling the truth.  The counterfoil to this supposition is the presumption of innocence mandated by the Constitution that can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence establishing the guilt of the accused.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GERARDO TERESO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation

To establish compensability of the claim under the said theory, the claimant must show proof of work-connection. Impliedly, the degree of proof required is merely substantial evidence, which means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion" (Ang Tibay vs. The Court of Industrial Relations and National Labor Union, Inc., 69 Phil. 635) or clear and convincing evidence. In this connection, it must be pointed out that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in claims for compensation. Respondents however insist on evidence which would establish direct causal relation between the disease rectal cancer and the employment of the deceased. Such a strict requirement which even medical experts in the field cannot support considering the uncertainty of the nature of the disease would negate the principle of liberality in the matter of evidence. Apparently, what the law merely requires is a reasonable  work-connection and not a direct causal relation. This kind of interpretation gives meaning and substance to the liberal and compassionate spirit of the law as embodied in Article 4 of the new Labor Code which states that "all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations shall be resolved in favor of labor." 

LUZ G. CRISTOBAL, PETITIONER, VS. EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION COMMISSION AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (NATIONAL SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD), RESPONDENTS.

Well-settled is the rule that expert opinion is never conclusive. Courts may exercise discretion in accepting or overruling the opinions of handwriting experts. Clear and convincing evidence is required to overturn the presumption of validity of a notarized deed of absolute sale. Absent such species of evidence, the presumption stands.

Well-settled is the rule that expert opinion is never conclusive. Courts may exercise discretion in accepting or overruling the opinions of handwriting experts. Clear and convincing evidence is required to overturn the presumption of validity of a notarized deed of absolute sale. Absent such species of evidence, the presumption stands.

 x x x

In this case, petitioner failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity of the notarized Deed conveying the land to private respondents. Her testimony denying the validity of the sale, having been “made by a party who has an interest in the outcome of the case, is not as reliable as written or documentary evidence. Moreover, self-serving statements are inadequate to establish one’s claims. Proof must be presented to support the same.”^[19]

LEONORA CEBALLOS, PETITIONER, VS. INTESTATE ESTATE OF THE LATE EMIGDIO MERCADO AND THE HEIRS OF EMIGDIO MERCADO, RESPONDENTS.

An order for x x x support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.”[

“An order for x x x support x x x must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.”^{[1]
x x x}

 Respondents’ Complaint for support is based on Randy’s alleged illegitimate filiation to Antonio.  Hence, for Randy to be entitled for support, his filiation must be established with sufficient certainty.  A review of the Decision of the RTC would show that it is bereft of any discussion regarding Randy’s filiation.  Although the appellate court, for its part, cited the applicable provision on illegitimate filiation, it merely declared the certified true copies of Randy’s birth certificate and baptismal certificate both identifying Antonio as the father as good proofs of his filiation with Randy and nothing more.  This is despite the fact that the said documents do not bear Antonio’s signature.  “Time and again, this Court has ruled that a high standard of proof is required to establish paternity and filiation.  An order for x x x support may create an unwholesome situation or may be an irritant to the family or the lives of the parties so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.”^[59]

Respondents failed to establish Randy’s
illegitimate filiation to Antonio. 

The rules for establishing filiation are found in Articles 172 and 175 of the Family Code which provide as follows:

Article 172.  The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following:

(1)  The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or

(2)   An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by:

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or

(2)  Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

x x x x

Article 175.  Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

ANTONIO PERLA, PETITIONER, VS. MIRASOL BARING AND RANDY PERLA, RESPONDENTS.

the “misrepresentation constituting the fraud must be established by full, clear, and convincing evidence, and not merely by a preponderance thereof.

The Civil Code, however, does not mandate the quantum of evidence required to prove actionable fraud, either for purposes of annulling a contract (dolo causante) or rendering a party liable for damages (dolo incidente). The definition of fraud is different from the quantum of evidence needed to prove the existence of fraud. Article 1338 provides the legal definition of fraud. Articles 1339 to 1343 constitute the behavior and actions that, when in conformity with the legal provision, may constitute fraud.

Jurisprudence has shown that in order to constitute fraud that provides basis to annul contracts, it must fulfill two conditions. First, the fraud must be dolo causante or it must be fraud in obtaining the consent of the party. Second, this fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In Viloria v. Continental Airlines,^[58] this Court held that:

Under Article 1338 of the Civil Code, there is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the contracting parties, the other is induced to enter into a contract which, without them, he would not have agreed to. In order that fraud may vitiate consent, it must be the causal (dolo causante), not merely the incidental (dolo incidente), inducement to the making of the contract. In Samson v. Court of Appeals, causal fraud was defined as “a deception employed by one party prior to or simultaneous to the contract in order to secure the consent of the other.”

Also, fraud must be serious and its existence must be established by clear and convincing evidence. (Citations omitted)^[59]

ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH, PETITIONER, VS. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, STERLING SHIPPING LINES, INC., RUPERTO V. TANKEH, VICENTE ARENAS, AND ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST, RESPONDENTS.

Self-defense must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

Self-defense must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Likewise, the fact that the victim initiated the unlawful aggression does not give the person defending an absolute license to kill. Where unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is not proven, there can be no self-defense. On the other hand, denial and alibi, while inherently weak, assume relevance when the evidence of the prosecution linking the accused to the crime is inconclusive.

x x x 

 

 Appellant Renato Albao admits that he inflicted the injuries which led to the death of the victim, but claims that he “acted in lawful self-defense.”^[13] In view of this admission, the burden of evidence shifts to him. Thus, he must prove the elements of self-defense with clear and convincing evidence.^[14] This he failed to do before the trial court, and now before us.

FIRST DIVISION

[ G.R. No. 117481, March 06, 1998 ]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE RENATO ALBAO @ JUN AND JOSE ALENO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

==============================================================

Denial, when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is negative, self-serving and merits no weight in law; it cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who unequivocally testified on affirmative matters.

pEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO CORRE JR., SONNY DE LOS REYES AND ANGELES ARUJADO ALIAS “KILIS,” ACCUSED. REYNALDO CORRE JR., APPELLANT. 

=============================================================

Allegations of bad faith and fraud must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

SPOUSES WILFREDO PALADA AND BRIGIDA PALADA,^* PETITIONERS, VS. SOLIDBANK CORPORATION AND SHERIFF MAYO DELA CRUZ, RESPONDENTS.

 

=============================================================

Robo con homicido is a special complex crime against property.  Absent clear and convincing evidence that the crime of robbery was perpetrated, and that, on occasion or by reason thereof, a homicide was committed, an accused cannot be found guilty of robbery with homicide, but only homicide, or murder, as the case may be.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SHERJOHN ARONDAIN AND JOSE PRECIOSO, ACCUSED.

 

============================================================

The crime of rape is a heinous offense.  Its commission must be established by clear and convincing evidence.  Invariably, the prosecution must rely on the sole testimony of the offended party.  If her version proves to be weak if not credible, then the conviction for the offense charged cannot follow

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FERNANDO TEODOSIO Y CARREON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

===============================================================

Mere allegations and self-serving statements will not overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties accorded to police officers. There must be a showing of clear and convincing evidence to successfully rebut this presumption.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARCELINO COLLADO Y CUNANAN, MYRA COLLADO Y SENICA, MARK CIPRIANO Y ROCERO, SAMUEL SHERWIN LATARIO Y ENRIQUE,^* AND REYNALDO RANADA Y ALAS,^** ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

==============================================================

In order that self-defense may totally exculpate an accused from criminal liability, he must prove with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of his chosen defense. As he has admitted to the killing, the accused must thus rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s. However, we agree with the Solicitor General’s recommendation that the accused should be held guilty only of homicide, not murder, because the prosecution failed to prove treachery as clearly and as cogently as the killing itself. Hence, the appellant is saved from the penalty of death.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BENJAMIN CAYABYAB Y BAGAYAN ALIAS BENJIE CAYABYAB, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

===============================================================

To justify an award for moral and exemplary damages under Articles 19 to 21 of the Civil Code (on human relations), the claimants must establish the other party's malice or bad faith by clear and convincing evidence.
 

SOLIDBANK CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. MINDANAO FERROALLOY CORPORATION, SPOUSES JONG-WON HONG AND SOO-OK KIM HONG,^* TERESITA CU, AND RICARDO P. GUEVARA AND SPOUSE,^** RESPONDENTS.

 ============================================================

The imputation of fraud in a civil case requires the presentation of clear and convincing evidence

To quote Tolentino again, the "misrepresentation constituting the fraud must be established by full, clear, and convincing evidence, and not merely by a preponderance thereof. The deceit must be serious. The fraud is serious when it is sufficient to impress, or to lead an ordinarily prudent person into error; that which cannot deceive a prudent person cannot be a ground for nullity. The circumstances of each case should be considered, taking into account the personal conditions of the victim."61

Thus, to annul a contract on the basis of dolo causante, the following must happen: First, the deceit must be serious or sufficient to impress and lead an ordinarily prudent person to error. If the allegedly fraudulent actions do not deceive a prudent person, given the circumstances, the deceit here cannot be considered sufficient basis to nullify the contract. In order for the deceit to be considered serious, it is necessary and essential to obtain the consent of the party imputing fraud. To determine whether a person may be sufficiently deceived, the personal conditions and other factual circumstances need to be considered.

Second, the standard of proof required is clear and convincing evidence. This standard of proof is derived from American common law. It is less than proof beyond reasonable doubt (for criminal cases) but greater than preponderance of evidence (for civil cases). The degree of believability is higher than that of an ordinary civil case. Civil cases only require a preponderance of evidence to meet the required burden of proof. However, when fraud is alleged in an ordinary civil case involving contractual relations, an entirely different standard of proof needs to be satisfied. The imputation of fraud in a civil case requires the presentation of clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain the existence of fraud. The burden of evidence rests on the part of the plaintiff or the party alleging fraud. The quantum of evidence is such that fraud must be clearly and convincingly shown

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 171428               November 11, 2013

ALEJANDRO V. TANKEH, Petitioner,
vs.
DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, STERLING SHIPPING LINES, INC., RUPERTO V. TANKEH, VICENTE ARENAS, and ASSET PRIVATIZATION TRUST, Respondents.