This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-07-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Factual findings of the lower courts, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on the Court.[15] For this reason, the Rules of Court provide that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. We delve into factual issues and act on the lower courts' factual findings only in exceptional circumstances, such as when these findings | |||||
|
2006-09-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| When the judgment of the court awarding a sum of money becomes final and executory, the rate of legal interest, whether the case falls under paragraph 1 or paragraph 2, above, shall be 12% per annum from such finality until its satisfaction, this interim period being deemed to be by then an equivalent to a forbearance of credit.[32] (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, the legal interest of 6% shall begin to run on February 9, 1993 when the trial court rendered judgment and not on February 4, 1980 when the complaint was filed. This is because at the time of the filing of the complaint, the amount of the damages to which plaintiffs may be entitled remains unliquidated and unknown, until it is definitely ascertained, assessed and determined by the court and only upon presentation of proof thereon.[33] From the time the judgment becomes final and executory, the interest rate shall be 12% until its satisfaction. | |||||
|
2005-08-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| To start, we held in Blanco v. Quasha[15] that this Court is not a trier of facts. As such, it is not its function to examine and determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which are supported by substantial evidence, are binding, final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court,[16] and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court. Moreover, well-entrenched is the prevailing jurisprudence that only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. | |||||
|
2003-12-08 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It should be stressed that moral damages are not intended to enrich a plaintiff at he expense of the defendant but are awarded only to allow the former to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the defendant's culpable action.[44] We emphasized in Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals that moral damages are not punitive in nature but are designed to somehow alleviate the physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation and similar injury unjustly caused to a person. We have held that even though moral damages are incapable of pecuniary computation, it should nevertheless be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. And, to be recoverable, such damage must be the proximate result of a wrongful act or omission the factual basis for which is satisfactorily established by the aggrieved party. [45] | |||||