Case No.

1. Republic vs. Mupas GR. No. 181892 Sept. 8, 2015

2. Nature of the Case

This case digest summarizes the key points and ruling of G.R. No. 181892,
emphasizing the burden of proof and the principle of preponderance of evidence in legal
disputes.

3. Facts:
The case involves a dispute over the structural integrity of NAIA-IPT III. The
government sought to prove structural defects in NAIA-IPT III, which could hold
PIATCO, Takenaka, and Asahikosan liable. However, the evidence presented by both
sides was in equipoise.

4. Issue:
Whether the Government proved the structural defect in NAIA-IPT III, holding
PIATCO, Takenaka, and Asahikosan liable.

5. Ruling:
The Court found that the Government failed to prove, by preponderance of
evidence, the existence of structural defects in NAIA-IPT III. Even with disputable
presumptions in favor of the Government, the evidence did not establish its case. The
burden of proof remained with the Government throughout the trial, and neither party
could conclusively establish its case. As a consequence, the Court left the parties as
they were.

6. Doctrine:
Under Section 3, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the burden of proof remains
with the party upon whom it is imposed. If facts allow for multiple explanations, and
evidence does not favor either party conclusively, the burden of proof fails. Even if a
plaintiff's evidence is stronger than the defendant's, it does not meet the requirement if it
fails to establish the cause of action. The Court's decision underscores the importance
of meeting the burden of proof in legal disputes. In this case, despite conflicting expert
opinions, neither party could sufficiently prove its case. The Court's adherence to the
principle of preponderance of evidence ensures fairness and justice in legal
proceedings.