Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
and Associates
ISSUE:
CONCLUSION:
Yes. According to the Rule 130 in the Rules of Court, the proof
of the existence and the due execution of the original through the
the client provided that she should present her testimony before the
Rule 103 in the Rule of Court also states that in order to test the
Al, v. Quiazon et. Al, 2015, if the evidence already mentioned in the
case would not be allowed to be considered in resolving whether or
STATEMENT OF FACTS:
Frank Galvin found himself fired from his elite Boston firm,
has had only four losing cases over the last three years. As a favor,
malpractice case in which it is all but assured that the defense will
settle for a large amount. The case involves a young woman who was
give her proper care. Frank assures them they have a strong case.
Laura. Costello testifies that, shortly after the patient had become
admitting form to hide his fatal error. She had written down that the
patient had had a full meal only one hour before being admitted. The
his mistake, he met with Costello in private and forced her to change
the number "1" to the number "9" on her admitting notes. But Costello
made a photocopy of the notes before she made the change, which
she brought with her to court. Concannon quickly turns the situation
the foreman asks the judge whether the jury can award more than the
amount the plaintiffs sought. The judge resignedly replies that they
can.
DISCUSSION
pursuant to Rule 130 in the Rules of Court, the proof of the existence
and the due execution of the original through the testimonies of the
et. Al, v. Quiazon et. Al, 2015, if the evidence already mentioned in
validity.