This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal.[16] In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof.[17] It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence.[18] Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law.[19] It is not for this Court to re- examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo.[20] | |||||
|
2007-02-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In synthesis, the petitioner is asking this Court to review the facts and the evidence in the instant case. But it is an established doctrine that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal.[20] Stated elsewise, factual matters, now being raised by the petitioner, cannot normally be inquired into by this Court in a certiorari proceeding. It cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them again, in order to ascertain if the trial and the appellate courts were correct in according superior credit to the piece of evidence of one party or the other.[21] | |||||