This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2007-01-29 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| In net effect, the definitive conclusion of the appellate court affirmatory of that of the trial court was that the bearer promissory note (Exh. "K") was a genuine and authentic instrument payable to the holder thereof. This factual determination, as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal, save for the most compelling reasons,[17] such as when that determination is clearly without evidentiary support or when grave abuse of discretion has been committed.[18] This is as it should be since the Court, in petitions for review of CA decisions under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, usually limits its inquiry only to questions of law. Stated otherwise, it is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of the factual holdings of lower courts.[19] | |||||
|
2007-01-22 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied) Evident it is from the above that the function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. And, as a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, more so when, as here, such findings are undisturbed by the appellate court. This factual determination, as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal, save only for the most compelling reasons,[10] such as when that determination is clearly without evidentiary support or when grave abuse of discretion has been committed.[11] This is as it should be since the Court, in petitions for review of CA decisions under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, usually limits its inquiry only to questions of law. Stated otherwise, it is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of the factual holdings of lower courts.[12] The Court refrains from further scrutiny of factual findings of trial courts, more so when those findings are affirmed by the CA, as here. To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which it is not meant to be.[13] | |||||
|
2006-09-22 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| While the Court, in a petition for review of CA decisions under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, usually limits its inquiry only to questions of law, this rule is far from absolute. Reyes v. Court of Appeals,[25] citing Floro v. Llenado,[26] for one, suggests as much. In Floro, we wrote:xxx There are, however, exceptional circumstances that would compel the Court to review the finding of facts of the [CA], summarized in ... and subsequent cases as follows: 1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; 3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; 4) when the judgment of the [CA] are based on misapprehension of facts; 5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; 6) ...; 7) ...; 8) ...; 9) when the [CA] manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion; and 10) when the findings of facts ... are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. (Words in bracket, added.) To the mind of the Court, the instant case is within the purview of at least three of the exceptions listed above, foremost of which is item #9. | |||||
|
2005-02-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| As the trial court and the appellate court reached divergent and irreconcilable conclusions concerning the same facts and evidence of the case, this Court is left without choice but to use its latent power to review such findings of facts. Indeed, the general rule is that we are not a trier of facts as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law.[51] One of the exceptions to this general rule, however, obtains herein as the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.[52] The lower court ruled that Ms. Lim did not abuse her right to ask Mr. Reyes to leave the party as she talked to him politely and discreetly. The appellate court, on the other hand, held that Ms. Lim is liable for damages as she needlessly embarrassed Mr. Reyes by telling him not to finish his food and to leave the place within hearing distance of the other guests. Both courts, however, were in agreement that it was Dr. Filart's invitation that brought Mr. Reyes to the party. | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[11] This rule, however, is not an iron-clad rule.[12] In Floro vs. Llenado,[13] we enumerated the various exceptions and one which finds application to the present case is when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court. | |||||
|
2000-12-01 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We are reminded by petitioner that the award of damages is excessive, but then again, the judgment has become final and executory. A judgment which has acquired finality, as in this case, becomes immutable and unalterable, hence, may no longer be modified in any respect except to correct clerical errors or mistakes, all the issues between the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest.[9] Obviously, for failure of petitioner to seasonably file its motion for new trial before the trial court, this case had become final and executory even before it reached the Court of Appeals. Consequently, we need not postulate any further on the doctrine of finality of judgment for it is understood that at the risk of occasional errors all judgments must be terminated at some definite time and execution be effected as a matter of course. | |||||