Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VIBRAM MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 170482 2009-09-04	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. AGUIDA VDA. DE SANTIAGO QUISUMBING, J.
As a rule, only questions of law are entertained by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence presented. It is a settled doctrine that in a civil case, final and conclusive are the factual findings of the trial court, but only if supported by clear and convincing evidence on record.[14]
	GR No. 170738 2008-09-12	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
As a rule, only questions of law are entertained by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence presented. It is a settled doctrine that in a civil case, final and conclusive are the factual findings of the trial court, but only if supported by clear and convincing evidence on record. [24]
	GR No. 156037 2007-05-25	MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. SEBASTIAN M. BAKING SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On the matter of attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, it is settled that the reasons or grounds for the award thereof must be set forth in the decision of the court.[9] Since the trial court's decision did not give the basis of the award, the same must be deleted. In Vibram Manufacturing Corporation v. Manila Electric Company,[10] we held:Likewise, the award for attorney's fees and litigation expenses should be deleted. Well-enshrined is that "an award for attorney's fees must be stated in the text of the courtï¿½s decision and not in the dispositive portion only" (Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Solidbank) v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 193 [1995] and Keng Hua Paper Products, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 257 [1998]). This is also true with the litigation expenses where the body of the decision discussed nothing for its basis.
	GR NO. 151098 2006-03-21	ERLINDA GAJUDO v. TRADERS ROYAL BANK PANGANIBAN, CJ
Petitioners urge this Court to depart from the general rule that the lower courts' findings of fact are not reviewable in a petition for review.[26] In support of their plea, they cite the conflicting findings of the trial and the appellate courts, as well as the alleged conjectures and surmises made by the CA in arriving at its Decision.
	GR NO. 121989 2006-01-31	PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. CA TINGA, J.
Prefatorily, findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to this Court.[13] A deviation from this rule, however, is justified where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals contradict those of the trial court.[14] In the case at bar, the contradictory findings of the courts below necessitate our review of the factual issues.