Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. MOISES AND CLEMENCIA ANDRADA v. PILHINO SALES CORPORATION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 176908 2015-03-25	PURISIMO M. CABAOBAS v. PEPSI-COLA PRODUCTS PERALTA, J.
Finally, this case does not fall within any of the recognized exceptions[42] to the rule that only questions of law are proper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Settled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind us when supported by substantial evidence.[43] Certainly, it is not the Court's function to assess and evaluate the evidence all over again, particularly where the findings of both the CA and the NLRC coincide.[44]
	GR No. 197336 2014-09-03	CORPORATION v. ROLANDO CORDERO DEL CASTILLO, J.
However, "the existence of bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary; x x x it requires that the reviewing court look into the evidence to find if indeed there is proof that is substantial enough to show such bad faith."[24] However, this Court is not a trier of facts; it is "not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court x x x."[25] This being the case, the instant Petition must fail because a question of fact cannot properly be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.[26] An appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall raise only questions of law.[27] Indeed, there are recognized exceptions to this rule, to wit: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
	GR No. 205879 2014-04-23	SKUNAC CORPORATION v. ROBERTO S. SYLIANTENG PERALTA, J.
(k) When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[8]
	GR No. 179096 2013-02-06	JOSEPH GOYANKO v. UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK BRION, J.
We first address the procedural issues. We stress the settled rule that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court resolves only questions of law, not questions of fact.[15] A question, to be one of law, must not examine the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties;[16] otherwise, the question is one of fact.[17] Whether an express trust exists in this case is a question of fact whose resolution is not proper in a petition under Rule 45. Reinforcing this is the equally settled rule that factual findings of the lower tribunals are conclusive on the parties and are not generally reviewable by this Court,[18] especially when, as here, the CA affirmed these findings. The plain reason is that this Court is not a trier of facts.[19] While this Court has, at times, permitted exceptions from the restriction,[20] we find that none of these exceptions obtain in the present case.
	GR No. 186030 2012-03-21	NORMA DELOS REYES VDA. DEL PRADO v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
There are recognized exceptions to this rule on questions of law as subjects of petitions for review, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures, (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible, (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion, (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts, (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting, (6) when in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee, (7) when the CA's findings are contrary to those by the trial court, (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based, (9) when the acts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent, (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record, or (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[20] After a consideration of the petitioners' arguments, this Court holds that the present appeal does not fall under any of these exceptions.