SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237364. April 23, 2018.]
ANGELO C. MABINI, petitioner, vs.GENEROSO S. BOLOGA, REPRESENTED BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, BELLARMINO MENDIGORIN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 April 2018which reads as follows: EcTCAD
"G.R. No. 237364 (Angelo C. Mabini v. Generoso S. Bologa, represented by his Attorney-In-Fact, Bellarmino Mendigorin)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the June 30, 2017 Decision 1 and February 7, 2018 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 105527 for failure of petitioner Angelo C. Mabini (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding his civil liability to respondent Generoso S. Bologa, represented by his Attorney-In-Fact, Bellarmino Mendigorin, in the sum of P1,953,965.31 with legal interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the complaint in March 2010 until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum thereafter until full payment.
As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioner failed to substantiate his allegation that he merely signed the loan documents as well as the letters of agreement dated January 4, 2007 and April 26, 2007 without reading their contents. For lack of adequate proof that his consent was vitiated, he is deemed to have agreed to the terms and amounts written therein, taking into account that as a businessman engaged in commuter business, he is expected to be vigilant in protecting his rights. In civil cases, basic is the rule that the party making the allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. 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." It is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth, or evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto, 3 which petitioner failed to establish in this case.
Moreover, well-established is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal, 4 save for certain exceptions none of which are obtaining in this case. HSAcaE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-30. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Jhosep Y. Lopez concurring.
2.Id. at 31-32.
3. See Heirs of Donton v. Stier, G.R. No. 216491, August 23, 2017.
4.Insular Investment and Trust Corporation v. Capital One Equities Corporation, 686 Phil. 819, 830-831 (2012); citation omitted.