This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-11-12 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court, in the interest of equity and justice, sometimes allows a liberal reading of the rules, so long as the petitioner is able to prove the existence of cogent reasons to excuse its non-observance.[65] The Court, however, does not find a justification to warrant such relaxation in this instance. | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Truly, a litigant bears the responsibility to monitor the status of his case, for no prudent party leaves the fate of his case entirely in the hands of his lawyer. It is the client's duty to be in contact with his lawyer from time to time in order to be informed of the progress and developments of his case;[4] hence, to merely rely on the bare reassurances of his lawyer that everything is being taken care of is not enough. | |||||
|
2009-07-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Anent the second issue, it would be well to remind petitioner of the time-honored doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts.[25] The rule finds greater relevance in this case because the MTC,[26] the RTC[27] and the CA[28] uniformly held that it was Jimmy Padua, and not Gerardo Breis, Sr., who was driving the taxi at the time of the accident. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We note however that both trial court and CA have ruled otherwise. Factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, are generally binding on the Court.[71] This is because the trial court's findings of fact are deemed conclusive and we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[72] The Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[73] The Court's jurisdiction over a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support from the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[74] | |||||
|
2009-06-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Often cited but rarely heeded is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the Court does not normally undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court. However, there are several recognized exceptions[25] in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court. Two of these exceptions find application in the present case, to wit: (1) when the findings of fact of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court;[26] and (2) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Given these circumstances, along with the obviously rehashed excuses of petitioners' counsel, we find the petition completely devoid of merit. Diligence is required not only from lawyers but also from their clients.[33] | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Delos Santos v. Elizalde,[31] this Court reminded litigants of their responsibility to monitor the status of their case and the inexcusability of the inability to file appellant's brief on account of non-monitoring:Petitioners' failure to apprise themselves of the status of their case during its pendency before the CA is inexcusable. Moreover, their former counsel's failure or neglect to file the required appellant's brief shall bind them. | |||||