This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, we reiterate the well-entrenched doctrine that the findings of fact of the CA affirming those of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality, by this Court. Only errors of law, not of fact, may be reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[39] A departure from the general rule may be warranted where the findings of fact of the CA are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or when the same is unsupported by the evidence on record.[40] There is no reason to apply the exception in the instant case because the findings and conclusions of the CA are in full accord with those of the trial court. These findings are buttressed by the evidence on record. Moreover, the issues and errors alleged in this petition are substantially the very same questions of fact raised by petitioner in the appellate court. | |||||
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The first set is factual. Petitioners seek to establish a set of facts contrary to the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts. However, as well established in our jurisprudence, only errors of law are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45.[17] The trial court, having had the opportunity to personally observe and analyze the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, is in a better position to pass judgment on their credibility.[18] More importantly, factual findings of the trial court, when amply supported by evidence on record and affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal.[19] While there are exceptional circumstances[20] when these findings may be set aside, none of them is present in this case. | |||||