Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ANICETO AND THELMA CIRELOS v. SPS. WILLIAM G. HERNANDEZ

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 158557 2008-02-04	FERNANDO MONTECILLO v. IRMA PAMA QUISUMBING, J.
Clearly, this petition calls for a review of the factual findings of the two lower courts. As a general rule, factual issues are not within the province of this Court. Factual findings of the RTC, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, become final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal except (1) when the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record; (8) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings of the RTC; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[8] None of the said exceptions apply in this case.
	GR NO. 164728 2007-11-23	MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. REPUBLIC SURETY QUISUMBING, J.
Furthermore, factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, become final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal except: (1) when the conclusion is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record; (8) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings of the trial court; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) when such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[15]
	GR No. 164652 2007-06-08	THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
We agree with petitioner. Decisions, final orders or resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved may be appealed to this Court through a petition for review. This remedy is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case,[19] and considering there is no congruence in the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals regarding the status of employment of petitioner, an exception to the general rule that this Court is bound by the findings of facts of the appellate court,[20] we can review such findings.
	GR NO. 162864 2007-03-28	SPS. PEBLIA ALFARO v. CA TINGA, J.
On its face, the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized; as such, it enjoys the presumption of regularity and carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.[25] Absent evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant, the presumption must be upheld.[26]
	GR NO. 153206 2006-10-23	ONG ENG KIAM v. LUCITA G. ONG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As between the detailed accounts given for Lucita and the general denial for William, the Court gives more weight to those of the former. The Court also gives a great amount of consideration to the assessment of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses as trial court judges enjoy the unique opportunity of observing the deportment of witnesses on the stand, a vantage point denied appellate tribunals.[34] Indeed, it is settled that the assessment of the trial court of the credibility of witnesses is entitled to great respect and weight having had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.[35]
	GR NO. 157434 2006-09-19	SPS. CLARO AND NIDA BAUTISTA v. BERLINDA F. SILVA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
When the document under scrutiny is a special power of attorney that is duly notarized, we know it to be a public document where the notarial acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of the fact of its due execution.[51] A buyer presented with such a document would have no choice between knowing and finding out whether a forger lurks beneath the signature on it. The notarial acknowledgment has removed that choice from him and replaced it with a presumption sanctioned by law that the affiant appeared before the notary public and acknowledged that he executed the document, understood its import and signed it. In reality, he is deprived of such choice not because he is incapable of knowing and finding out but because, under our notarial system, he has been given the luxury of merely relying on the presumption of regularity of a duly notarized SPA. And he cannot be faulted for that because it is precisely that fiction of regularity which holds together commercial transactions across borders and time.
	GR NO. 151458 2006-08-31	JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN GULAM v. SPS. CATALINO AND RICARDA SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Although Norhaya testified, she did not, however, give any credible testimony regarding these alleged payments. In fact, Norhaya failed to testify on the alleged separate payment made in the amount of P500,000.00, which was annotated on the Contract to Sell.[22] With regard to the alleged payment and receipt made on March 9, 1994, respondent Santos categorically denied having received any payment on said date.[23] Moreover, the RTC and the CA chose to ignore her testimony, and instead gave weight to the testimony of the PNP Crime Laboratory Document Examiner that the signature appearing on the receipt was not made by respondent Santos based on her standard signature.[24] On this score, the Court will not interfere with the judgment exercised by the RTC and the CA since it is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination. As such, its evaluation of the credibility of witnesses is accorded great respect.[25]