Home 
Part 6
THE HEIRS OF GEORGE Y. POE,
Petitioners,
G.R. No. 156302
- versus -
MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.,
Respondent.
Promulgated: April 7, 2000
x--------------------------------------------/
The presumption that a man will do that which tends to his obvious advantage, if he possesses the means, supplies a most important test for judging of the comparative weight of evidence x x x If, on the supposition that a charge or claim is unfounded, the party against whom it is made has evidence within his reach by which he may repel that which is offered to his prejudice, his omission to do so supplies a strong presumption that the charge or claim is well founded; it would be contrary to every principle of reason, and to all experience of human conduct, to form any other conclusion.” (Starkie on Evidence, p. 846, Moore on Facts, Vol. I, p. 544)
x x x x
The ordinary rule is that one who has knowledge peculiarly within his own control, and refuses to divulge it, cannot complain if the court puts the most unfavorable construction upon his silence, and infers that a disclosure would have shown the fact to be as claimed by the opposing party." (Societe, etc., v. Allen, 90 Fed. Rep. 815, 817, 33 C.C.A. 282, per Taft, C.J., Moore on Facts, Vol. I, p. 561).
The inference still holds even if it be assumed, for argument's sake, that the solidary liability of respondent MICI with Rhoda is improbable, for it has likewise been said that:
Weak evidence becomes strong by the neglect of the party against whom it is put in, in not showing by means within the easy control of that party that the conclusion drawn from such evidence is untrue. (Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Callaghan, 50 III. App. 676, 681, Moore on Facts, Vol. I, p. 572).
Given the admission of respondent MICI that it is the insurer of the truck involved in the accident that killed George, and in the utter absence of proof to establish both the existence and the extent/amount of the alleged limited liability of respondent MICI as insurer, the Court could only conclude that respondent MICI had agreed to fully indemnify third-party liabilities. Consequently, there is no more difference in the amounts of damages which petitioners can recover from Rhoda or respondent MICI; petitioners can recover the said amounts in full from either of them, thus, making their liabilities solidary or joint and several.
(To be continued)
