This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the exception is not applied unqualifiedly. In Bank of Commerce v. Serrano,[26] we held that this Court does not, of itself, automatically delve into the record of a case to determine the facts anew where there is disagreement between the findings of fact by the trial court and by the Court of Appeals. When the disagreement is merely on the probative value of the evidence, i.e., which is more credible of two versions, we limit our review to only ascertaining if the findings of the Court of Appeals are supported by the records. So long as the findings of the appellate court are consistent with and not palpably contrary to the evidence on record, we shall decline to make a review on the probative value of such evidence. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, and not those of the trial court, will be considered final and conclusive, even in this Court. In this case, we find no cogent reason to disturb the foregoing factual findings of the Court of Appeals holding respondents entitled to the possession of the subject properties. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be raised because this Court is not a trier of facts.[34] Metrobank wants to make this case an exception to the rule, as it attributes to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, the Secretary of Justice, and the Court of Appeals a misapprehension of the facts. Unfortunately, there is no adequate support for this imputation. | |||||