Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 176085 2012-02-08	FEDERICO S. ROBOSA v. NLRC BRION, J.
The Court further explained in Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[27] and People v. Godoy[28] the character of contempt proceedings, thus
	GR No. 174143 2011-11-28	SPS. RICARDO HIPOLITO v. TERESITA CINCO DEL CASTILLO, J.
At the outset, "[i]t bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari [under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court], the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the [CA] is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained."[29] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.[30] More so, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh evidence pertaining to factual issues which have not been subject of any proper proceedings below. "Well-entrenched and settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court adequately and on time need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."[31] The determination of who owns the subject property, the authenticity of the evidence of both parties, and whether petitioners are builders in good faith are questions of fact, the resolution of which requires the examination of evidence that should be ventilated in a separate action brought before a proper forum.
	GR NO. 160573 2005-10-19	GRACE A. BASMAYOR v. LOIDA B. ATENCIO QUISUMBING, J.
In petitions for review or appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the appellate tribunal is limited to the determination of whether the lower court committed reversible errors.[20] The "errors" which are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals are only those allegedly committed by said court.[21] It is the burden of the party seeking review of a decision of the Court of Appeals or other lower tribunals to distinctly set forth in her petition for review, not only the existence of questions of law fairly and logically arising therefrom, but also questions substantial enough to merit consideration, or show that there are special and important reasons warranting the review that she seeks. If these are not shown prima facie in her petition, this Court will be justified in summarily spurning the petition as lacking in merit.[22]
	GR NO. 152752 2005-01-19	INOCELIA S. AUTENCIO v. CITY ADMINISTRATOR PANGANIBAN, J.
In her original appeal to the CSC, petitioner did not raise the issue of respondent's alleged misrepresentation, which had allegedly induced her to agree to submit the case for resolution without any formal hearing. Instead, she merely questioned the harshness of the penalty imposed by the City Government. Failure to invoke a defense within the prescribed period constitutes a waiver thereof.[13] Defenses not invoked below cannot be raised on appeal.[14]
	GR No. 137326 2003-08-25	ROSARIO TEXTILE MILLS v. CA CARPIO, J.
xxx True it is that generally, contempt proceedings are characterized as criminal in nature, but the more accurate juridical concept is that contempt proceedings may actually be either civil or criminal, even if the distinction between one and the other may be so thin as to be almost imperceptible. But it does exist in law. It is criminal when the purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court and protect its outraged dignity. It is civil when there is failure to do something ordered by a court to be done for the benefit of a party (3 Moran Rules of Court, pp. 343-344, 1970 ed.; see also Perkins vs. Director of Prisons, 58 Phil. 272; Harden vs. Director of Prisons, 81 Phil. 741.) Thus, the Court held in Remman Enterprises, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[14] that:In general, criminal contempt proceedings should be conducted in accordance with the principles and rules applicable to criminal cases, in so far as such procedure is consistent with the summary nature of contempt proceedings. So it has been held that the strict rules that govern criminal prosecutions apply to a prosecution for criminal contempt, that the accused is to be afforded many of the protections provided in regular criminal cases, and that proceedings under statutes governing them are to be strictly construed. However, criminal proceedings are not required to take any particular form so long as the substantial rights of the accused are preserved.