This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court notes the factual nature of the questions raised in the petition. Although the general rule is that only questions of law are entertained by the Court in petitions for review on certiorari,[42] as the Court is not tasked to repeat the lower courts' analysis or weighing of evidence,[43] there are instances when the Court may resolve factual issues, such as (1) when the trial court misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case;[44] and (2) when the findings of facts of the CA and the trial court differ.[45] | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| On the question of sufficiency of petitioner's evidence, the general and time-honored rule is that in an appeal by certiorari, the Court does not resolve controversies involving factual questions, as the Court is empowered only to resolve purely questions of law.[8] However, this rule admits of a few exceptions, among which are when the findings of the trial court and the appellate court are in conflict[9] and when the trial court has overlooked, ignored or disregarded some facts or circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the case.[10] | |||||