This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, we stress that petitioners raised not only questions of law but also questions of fact in their Petition for Review.[14] It cannot be gainsaid that fraud is a question of fact which must be alleged and proved at the level of the lower court.[15] This, petitioners miserably failed to do. Fraud cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.[16] Petitioners' allegation of fraud was evidenced only by Atty. Emiliano Rabina's uncorroborated testimony. Without any reliable evidence apart from such self-serving and bare allegations, it was not accorded much weight by the Provincial Adjudicator, the DARAB, and the Court of Appeals. The eschewal of the Provincial Adjudicator on this point is succinct:The claim [of] [therein] petitioner Emiliano Rabina that the subject landholding was not really owned by the Rabina family but by the Quitoriano family and that there was false representation by [private] respondent Aglibot that the land is owned by the Rabina family[;] hence, he sold the subject landholding to [private respondent] Aglibot could not be admitted by the Board. The Board could not accept the claim of false representation by Emiliano Rabina. It is hard to imagine that Emiliano Rabina who is a government prosecutor could be misled by his tenant, [private] respondent Aglibot. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that Fiscal Emiliano Rabina could not identify the boundaries of his properties.[17] It is thus beyond this Court's jurisdiction to review the factual finding of the Provincial Adjudicator, DARAB and the Court of Appeals that no fraud or misrepresentation attended the execution of the Deed of Absolute Transfer. Whether the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by an adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing, whether certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side, whether inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight, all these are issues of fact which may not be passed upon in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[18] The Court is not a trier of facts.[19] It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence.[20] The jurisdiction of this Court over cases brought to it is limited to the review and rectification of errors allegedly committed by the lower courts.[21] The recognized exceptions are not here present.[22] Hence, the general rule holds true in the present Petition. | |||||
|
2007-03-12 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It is settled that fraud is a question of fact and the circumstances constituting the same must be alleged and proved in the court below.[18] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Likewise, the award of exemplary damages to Meralco must be sustained. The CA granted exemplary damages because South Pacific acted in a fraudulent manner:[19] On numerous occasions, and while in the presence of South Pacific's officers, Meralco agents were able to discover that the former had been using a removable short circuiting device as indicated by the pricked holes on the secondary current leads for lower and upper element near the [bushing current transformer or] BCT terminal. Further inspection revealed that the [BCT] terminal, main terminal and cover seals of the electric meters were deformed. This meant that the electric meters concerned were not registering the full amount of electric energy actually being used by the former. These, among other instances, point to South Pacific's culpability. It would seem inconceivable for all the four electric meters inside South Pacific's premises to be in such a defective condition even without any deliberate act on its part. The evidence in the case at bar affords a substantial basis of fact to justify a conclusion that South Pacific must be held responsible for the tampered meters.[20] Again, fraud is a question of fact which must be alleged and proved at the level of the courts below.[21] Fraud cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.[22] We agree with the CA that it was incredible that not just one but all four meters in South Pacific's premises would, at the same time, fail to completely register the amount of energy consumed. South Pacific's full physical control of these meters clearly enabled it to tamper with them and this undeniably redounded to its benefit. | |||||