This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-11-21 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Neither are we inclined to entertain Morales' belated argument that the real cause for his termination was retrenchment to prevent losses and that Metrobank failed to establish the requirements therefor. For one, said theory contradicts Morales' claim that he was dismissed from employment for personal reasons, in a manner amounting to constructive dismissal. For another, not having been raised before the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA, it stands to reason that Morales' theory of termination to preserve the viability of Metrobank's business cannot be entertained for the first time in connection with the petition at bench. Consistent with the principle that issues not raised a quo cannot be raised for the first time on appeal,[42] points of law, theories and arguments not brought to the attention of the CA need not and ordinarily will not be considered by this Court.[43] For a reviewing court to allow otherwise would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice and due process.[44] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought to it from the CA is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court.[21] | |||||
|
2007-10-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In petitions for review on certiorari, the jurisdiction of this Court is only limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court inasmuch as the latter's findings of fact are deemed conclusive. Thus, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[13] It is foreclosed from ascertaining if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other.[14] While this rule is not without exceptions, we do not find the instant case falling under any of said exceptions to warrant a different conclusion from the Court. [15] | |||||
|
2005-08-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of fact may be raised in this Court on a petition for review on certiorari. The reason is that the Court is not a trier of facts. However, the rule is subject to several exceptions. The Court may delve into and resolve factual issues in those cases where the findings of the trial court and the CA are absurd, contrary to the evidence on record, impossible, capricious or arbitrary, or based on a misappreciation of facts.[74] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a basic rule of evidence that between documentary and oral evidence, the former carries more weight.[6] The cash bond was posted on March 8 (Monday), not on March 6, 1999, as shown by O.R. No. 9215725. The property bond, in substitution of the cash bond, was filed, not on March 6, but on March 10 (Wednesday), as shown by the jurat. Both Orders of Release were issued on March 6 (Saturday). Therefore, there is no doubt that respondent judge ordered the release of the accused despite the fact that there was yet no bail filed and approved for his provisional liberty. | |||||
|
2001-07-19 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Third. Petitioner failed to sufficiently convince the Court why we should not rely on the facts found by the Court of Appeals. Erlinda claimed that the facts mentioned in the decision were erroneous and incomplete. We see no reason why the High Court of the land need go to such length. The hornbook doctrine states that findings of fact of the lower courts are conclusive on the Supreme Court.[17] We emphasize, it is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again.[18] Although there are exceptions to the rule,[19] Erlinda failed to show that this is an exceptional instance. | |||||