This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-06-19 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The issue raised is essentially factual in nature. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions and errors of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Court.[19] Not being a trier of facts, it is not the function of the Court to re-examine, winnow and weigh anew the respective sets of evidence of the parties. Corollary to this precept, but subject to well-defined exceptions,[20] is the rule that findings of fact of trial courts or the CA, when supported by substantial evidence on record, are conclusive and binding on the Court.[21] But for compelling reasons, such as when the factual findings of the trying court or body are in conflict with those of the appellate court, or there was a misapprehension of facts or when the inference drawn from the facts was manifestly mistaken,[22] this Court shall analyze or weigh the evidence again and if necessary reverse the factual findings of the courts a quo. This is precisely the situation obtaining in this case. The findings, on the one hand, of RARAD Arrieta and, those of the DARAB and the CA, on the other, relative to the appreciation of evidence adduced in hearings before RARAD Arrieta, are incompatible with each other. | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As a rule, an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to review of errors of law.[24] The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding on us unless there was a misapprehension of facts or when the inference drawn from the facts was manifestly mistaken.[25] The instant case falls within the exception. | |||||
|
2007-09-28 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| As a rule, an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to review of errors of law.[20] The factual findings of the trial court, specially when affirmed by the appellate court, are generally binding on us unless there was a misapprehension of facts or when the inference drawn from the facts was manifestly mistaken.[21] This case falls within the exception. | |||||
|
2007-08-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, this Court is not a trier of facts, and unless there are excepting circumstances, it does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[23] Factual matters are beyond the jurisdiction of this Court.[24] In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. As held in Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[25] factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive[26] on the parties and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court.[27] Absent any palpable error or arbitrariness, the findings of fact of the lower court are conclusive. On this ground alone, the appeal warrants a dismissal. | |||||
|
2007-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The jurisdiction of this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact.[39] Nevertheless, this Court may review the facts where: (1) the findings and conclusions of the Labor Arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, on the other, are inconsistent on material and substantial points; (2) the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals are capricious and arbitrary; and (3) the Court of Appeals' findings that are premised on a supposed absence of evidence are in fact contradicted by the evidence on record.[40] None of the foregoing exceptions to our limited power to review the facts is present in the case at bar. | |||||