ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

Can someone still claim compensation for the income the deceased would have earned if there is no written proof?

Lack of documentary evidence is not fatal to a claim for the deceased’s lost earning capacity. Testimony from a competent witness familiar with his salary is a sufficient basis to determine the deceased’s income before his death. (Vivian Torreon v. Generoso Aparra, Jr., G.R. No. 188493, December 13, 2017)

When is preponderance of evidence applicable?

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.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase that, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as it is worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.Xxx In civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish his case by preponderance of evidence, i.e., superior weight of evidence on the issues involved.

The Supreme Court decides: The trial court’s ruling lacked sufficient analysis of factors such as Winston’s health, safety, and emotional well-being, as well as his preference and any potential detrimental conditions. This oversight indicates that the court did not fully address the essential factors required to determine the most suitable custodial arrangement for Winston.

In this case, since Catherine was not married to respondent, she had sole parental authority over her illegitimate son, Winston. After her death, custody was granted to Winston’s collateral grandparents under the Family Code. This substitute parental authority is not permanent and can be reviewed by the court, which must consider the child’s best interests.

Test of Patent Infringement – Literal Infringement Test v. Doctrine of Equivalents Test

The Literal Infringement Test and the Doctrine of Equivalents are fundamental in the adjudication of patent infringement cases. The Literal Infringement Test offers a precise measure of infringement based on the exact language of patent claims, whereas the Doctrine of Equivalents provides a broader protection against insubstantial changes. Together, these tests balance the need for clear boundaries in patent protection with the need to prevent infringement by trivial modifications. Understanding both tests is crucial for navigating the complexities of patent law and ensuring fair protection for patent holders while fostering innovation.