This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised.[15] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the (CTA) are conclusive and binding on the Court[16] and they carry even more weight when the (CTA En Banc) affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[17] However, this Court had recognized several exceptions to this rule,[18] including instances when the appellate court manifestly overlooked relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would probably justify a different conclusion. | |||||
|
2014-09-29 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's underlying theory is that the subject casino chips were in fact stolen by its employee Cabrera, then handed over to respondent's brothers, Ludwin and Deoven, for encashment at the casino; that Ludwin and Deoven played at the casino only for show and to conceal their true intention, which is to encash the chips; that respondent's claim that he owned the chips, as they were given to him in payment of services he rendered to a Chinese client, is false. These arguments require the Court to examine in greater detail the facts involved. However, this may not be done because the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented during trial; the resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings thereon are received with respect and are binding on the Court subject only to specific exceptions.[21] In turn, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals carry even more weight when they are identical to those of the trial court's.[22] | |||||
|
2014-06-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, this Court is not unaware that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised.[13] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the [CTA] are conclusive and binding on the Court[14] and they carry even more weight when the [CTA En Banc] affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[15] However, this Court had recognized several exceptions to this rule,[16] including instances when the appellate court manifestly overlooked relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is well settled that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised.[14] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the CA are conclusive and binding on the Court[15] and they carry even more weight when the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[16] However, the Court had recognized several exceptions to this rule, 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 a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts 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 findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts 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; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[17] | |||||
|
2007-01-25 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| A prudent man knowing that payment is due him would have demanded payment by his debtor from the moment the same became due and demandable. More so if the sum involved runs in hundreds of thousand of pesos. By and large, every person, at the very moment he learns that he was deprived of a thing which rightfully belongs to him, would have created a big fuss. He would not have waited for a year within which to do so. It is most inconceivable that Templonuevo did not do this.[12] Generally, only questions of law may be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[13] Factual findings of the CA are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when the CA affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[14] Such questions on whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are questions of fact. The same holds true for questions on whether or not the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by the adverse party may be said to be strong, clear and convincing, or whether or not 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 are not reviewable by the Court.[15] | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Doubtless, the second issue thus raised pivots on the factual findings of the CA respecting the right of respondent Pilar Farm to its leased area and the petitioners� lack of right to enter and occupy a portion thereof. Needless to stress, such issue is beyond the province of the Court to review, just as it is improper to raise the same in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[16] The Court is not a trier of facts; it is not its function to examine, analyze, winnow or weigh anew the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination. This rule all the more assumes an imperative dimension where, as here, the CA affirms the findings of the lower court. Stated differently, substantiated findings of the CA are binding on the Court and they carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[17] As it were, the RTC�s Order [18] of December 21, 1992 directs the MTC to exercise its jurisdiction over and to proceed with the trial and decide Criminal Case No. 7852. If at all, the petitioners may hope to pursue their call for judicial reexamination in the MTC. | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We have oft "ruled that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court - and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court,"[18] and in the absence of any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support in the evidence on record, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute serious abuse of discretion, such findings must stand. The courts a quo are in a much better position to evaluate properly the evidence. | |||||
|
2004-09-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Timeless is the legal adage that the factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive.[16] Both courts possess time-honored expertise in the field of fact finding. But where some facts are misinterpreted or some details overlooked, the Supreme Court may overturn the erroneous conclusions drawn by the courts a quo. Where, as in this case, the facts in dispute are crucial to the question of innocence or guilt of the accused, a careful factual reexamination is imperative. | |||||
|
2000-07-18 |
PURISIMA, J. |
||||
| 'Said building of four-span lofty one storey in height with mezzanine portions is constructed of reinforced concrete and hollow blocks and/or concrete under galvanized iron roof and occupied as hosiery mills, garment and lingerie factory, transistor-stereo assembly plant, offices, ware house and caretaker's quarter.' The Court is mindful of the well-entrenched doctrine that factual findings by the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court, and the same carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals has affirmed the findings of fact arrived at by the lower court.[15] | |||||