This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-06-22 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As to the non-finding of collusion, let it be reiterated that the Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to examine and determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision.[37] This applies with greater force to the present petition because the factual findings of the CA are in full agreement with that of the trial court. These factual findings of the CA are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight as the said court affirmed the factual findings of the trial court.[38] Both the CA and the RTC ruled that the execution of the mortgage contract was not attended by collusion. The Court finds no reason to disturb the consistent findings of the lower courts. | |||||
|
2004-10-20 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In arriving at the assailed Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the factual findings of the RTC. Among them: that it was Añonuevo's vehicle which had struck Villagracia;[10] that Añonuevo's vehicle had actually hit Villagracia's left mid-thigh, thus causing a comminuted fracture;[11] that as testified by eyewitness Alfredo Sorsano, witness for Villagracia, Añonuevo was "umaarangkada," or speeding as he made the left turn into Libertad;[12] that considering Añonuevo's claim that a passenger jeepney was obstructing his path as he made the turn. Añonuevo had enough warning to control his speed;[13] and that Añonuevo failed to exercise the ordinary precaution, care and diligence required of him in order that the accident could have been avoided.[14] Notably, Añonuevo, in his current petition, does not dispute the findings of tortious conduct on his part made by the lower courts, hinging his appeal instead on the alleged negligence of Villagracia. Añonuevo proffers no exculpatory version of facts on his part, nor does he dispute the conclusions made by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. Accordingly, the Court, which is not a trier of facts,[15] is not compelled to review the factual findings of the lower courts, which following jurisprudence have to be received with respect and are in fact generally binding.[16] | |||||
|
2003-10-03 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The resolution of the issues presented before this Court by Naguiat involves the determination of facts, a function which this Court does not exercise in an appeal by certiorari. Under Rule 45 which governs appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be raised[12] as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[13] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are in fact generally binding on the Supreme Court.[14] A question of law which the Court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[15] There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts.[16] | |||||
|
2003-06-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, this Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts.[9] The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on this Court.[10] This applies with greater force when both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are in complete agreement on their factual findings.[11] In this case, there is no reason to deviate from the findings of the lower courts. The facts relied upon by the trial and appellate courts are borne out by the record. We agree with the conclusions drawn by the lower courts from these facts. | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The first issue is factual. Basic is the rule that factual issues are beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review, for it is not our function to review evidence all over again.[5] Although there are exceptions, petitioner did not show that this case is one of them.[6] Factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon us and, generally, will not be reviewed on appeal.[7] | |||||