This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Further applying the Implementing Rules, there is one other reason for holding that petitioner failed to perfect her appeal. It is of record that she received the August 12, 1998 Compliance Order issued by DOLE-Bacolod, as indicated in the registry return card marked Annex "I".[33] Petitioner does not question this, except to point out that the registry return card does not indicate the date she received the order. That is of no consequence, for the fact remains that petitioner was put on actual notice not only of the existence of the August 12, 1998 Compliance Order but also of the summary investigation of her establishment. It behooves her to file a timely appeal to public respondent[34] or object to the conduct of the investigation.[35] Petitioner did neither, opting instead to sit idle and wait until the following year to question the investigation and resultant order, in the guise of opposing the writ of execution through a motion dubbed "Double Verified Special Appearance to Oppose 'Writ of Execution' For Being a Blatant and Dangerous Violation of Due Process."[36] Such appeal already went beyond the ten-day period allowed under Section 8(b) of Rule X-B of the Implementing Rules. | |||||
|
2007-09-13 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to this Court.[25] It is a well-entrenched rule that the findings of fact of the trial court and its conclusions are accorded by this Court high respect, if not conclusive effect, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. This is because of the unique advantage of the trial court of having been able to observe, at close range, the demeanor and behavior of the witnesses as they testified.[26] Furthermore, it is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh evidence all over again, unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous as to constitute palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.[27] | |||||