Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. SINFOROSO F. MACALINAO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 156337 2007-09-28	UNITED COCONUT PLANTERS BANK v. ALBERTO T. LOOYUKO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
At the outset, it bears to reiterate the settled rule that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review before this Court.[6] However, this Rule is not absolute; it admits of exceptions, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[7] This Court finds that the present case falls under the third and sixth exceptions for reasons discussed hereunder.
	GR NO. 171989 2007-07-04	FIRST CORPORATION v. FORMER SIXTH DIVISION OF CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a well-entrenched rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. [12] This Court will not pass upon the findings of fact of the trial court, especially if they have been affirmed on appeal by the appellate court.[13] Unless the case falls under the recognized exceptions,[14] the rule should not be disturbed.
	GR NO. 162368 2006-07-17	MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS v. BRIX FERRARIS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The issue of whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of marriage depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case.[9] Such factual issue, however, is beyond the province of this Court to review. It is not the function of the Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of such factual determination.[10] It is a well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court,[11] save for the most compelling and cogent reasons, like when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; or when there is a misappreciation of facts,[12] which are unavailing in the instant case.
	GR NO. 154087 2005-10-25	MILAGROS ILAO-QUIANAY v. RODOLFO MAPILE TINGA, J.
Under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review before this Court. However, this Rule is not absolute; it admits of exceptions, such as: (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[8]