Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RICARDO ENCARNACION v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 182148 2011-06-08	SIME DARBY PILIPINAS v. GOODYEAR PHILIPPINES MENDOZA, J.
Likewise well-settled is the principle that absent grave abuse of discretion, the Court will not disturb the factual findings of the CA. The Court will only exercise its power of review in known exceptions such as gross misappreciation of evidence or a total void of evidence. [23]
	GR No. 148974 2010-07-02	OMC CARRIERS v. SPS. ROBERTO C. NABUA AND ROSARIO T. NABUA PERALTA, J.
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court. Absent grave abuse of discretion, the Court will not disturb the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.[15] In Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals,[16] the Court held that, "unless there is a clearly grave or whimsical abuse on its part, findings of fact of the appellate court will not be disturbed. The Supreme Court will only exercise its power of review in known exceptions such as gross misappreciation of evidence or a total void of evidence."
	GR No. 163532 2010-03-12	YOKOHAMA TIRE PHILIPPINES v. YOKOHAMA EMPLOYEES UNION CARPIO, J.
Factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court. Absent grave abuse of discretion, the Court will not disturb the Court of Appeals' factual findings.[18] In Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals,[19] the Court held that, "unless there is a clearly grave or whimsical abuse on its part, findings of fact of the appellate court will not be disturbed. The Supreme Court will only exercise its power of review in known exceptions such as gross misappreciation of evidence or a total void of evidence." YTPI failed to show that the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion.
	GR No. 169606 2009-11-27	BERNARDO B. JOSE v. MICHAELMAR PHILS. CARPIO, J.
Jose, Jr. claims that the Court of Appeals erred when it ruled that there was just cause for his dismissal. The Court is not impressed. In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a mere statement that the Court of Appeals erred is insufficient. The petition must state the law or jurisprudence and the particular ruling of the appellate court violative of such law or jurisprudence. In Encarnacion v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court held that:Petitioner asserts that there is a question of law involved in this appeal. We do not think so. The appeal involves an appreciation of facts, i.e., whether the questioned decision is supported by the evidence and the records of the case. In other words, did the Court of Appeals commit a reversible error in considering the trouble record of the subject telephone? Or is this within the province of the appellate court to consider? Absent grave abuse of discretion, this Court will not reverse the appellate court's findings of fact.