This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-08-07 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that when the trial court's factual findings have been affirmed by the CA, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon the Court, and may no longer be reviewed on Rule 45 petitions.[31] While there exists exceptions to this rule such as when the CA's and RTC's findings are in conflict with each other[32] the Court observes that none applies with respect to the ruling that the subject transaction was one of sale and not an equitable mortgage. Records readily reveal that both the RTC and the CA observed that there is no clear and convincing evidence to show that the parties agreed upon a mortgage. Hence, absent any glaring error therein or any other compelling reason to hold otherwise, this finding should now be deemed as conclusive and perforce must stand. As echoed in the case of Ampo v. CA:[33] | |||||
|
2013-07-24 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The gravamen of the offense punished by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment.[13] Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 punishes the mere act of issuing a worthless check. The law did not look either at the actual ownership of the check or of the account against which it was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the drawee, maker or issuer.[14] The thrust of the law is to prohibit the making of worthless checks and putting them into circulation.[15] | |||||