Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts.[36] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
	GR No. 180917 2010-04-23	ATTY. VICENTE E. SALUMBIDES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, since the Court is not a trier of facts.[34] As a rule, the Court is not to review evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof. In the present case, the appellate court affirmed the factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, which rendered the factual questions beyond the province of the Court.