This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2016-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has also carved out recognized exceptions[5] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;[6] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;[7] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[8] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[9] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[10] (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;[11] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court's;[12] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[13] (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;[14] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[15] and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[16] | |||||
|
2015-10-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we also note that the petitioner only raised questions of fact, which are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. Under Section 1 of Rule 45, such petition shall only raise questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not our function to analyze and weigh the evidence that the lower courts have passed upon. Ordinarily, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has carved out recognized exceptions[4] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;[5] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[6] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[7] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[8] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[9] (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;[10] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;[11] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[12] (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;[13] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[14] and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[15] | |||||
|
2015-09-28 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures (Joaquin v. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257 [1953]); (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible (Luna v. Linatok, 74 Phil. 15 [1942]); (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion (Buyco v. People, 95 Phil. 453 [1955]); (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts (Cruz v. Sosing, L-4875, Nov. 27, 1953); (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting (Casica v. Villaseca, L-9590 Ap. 30, 1957; unrep.); (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee (Evangelista v. Alto Surety and Insurance Co., 103 Phil. 401 [1958]); (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA 622 [1970]; Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593 [1986]); (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based (Ibid.,); (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents (Ibid.,); and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record (Salazar v. Gutierrez, 33 SCRA 242 [1970]).[34] | |||||
|
2015-02-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| There are exceptions to the general rule that the findings of fact of labor tribunals, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this court. In Medina v. Asistio, Jr:[80] | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We are aware that the issues at hand require us to review the pieces of evidence presented by the parties before the lower courts. As a general rule, a petition for review on certiorari precludes this Court from entertaining factual issues; we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the lower courts. However, the present case falls under the recognized exception that a review of the facts is warranted when the findings of the lower courts are conflicting.[32] Accordingly, we will examine the relevant pieces of evidence presented to the lower court. | |||||
|
2012-03-21 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Contrary to these rules, the petitioners ask us to review the lower courts' factual finding on Carmen's exclusion in the subject deed of succession, to reconsider its contents and those of the other documentary evidence which they have submitted with the court a quo, all of which involve questions of fact rather than questions of law. In their assignment of errors, petitioners even fully question the factual basis for the courts' finding of their guilt. However, as we have explained in Medina v. Asistio, Jr.:[19] | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The Court then proceeds to discuss its own jurisdiction in reviewing findings of fact in a petition for review, under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. In Medina v. Asistio,[27] this Court already extensively explained that: It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh such evidence all over again. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. (Nicolas et al., v. CA, 154 SCRA 635 [1987]; Tiongco v. de la Merced, 58 SCRA 89 [1974]). | |||||
|
2003-11-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The issues raised in this petition are factual. It has been the consistent policy of this Court to review only errors of law from decisions elevated to it from the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[37] There are however exceptional circumstances that may compel the Court to review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which as summarized in a line of cases[38] are as follows: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals are based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of facts are conclusions without citations of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which if properly considered would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. | |||||