This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-12-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Surprisingly, however, Metrobank failed to detect the above alterations which could not escape the attention of even an ordinary person. This negligence was exacerbated by the fact that, as found by the trial court, the check in question was examined by the cash custodian whose functions do not include the examinations of checks indorsed for payment against drawer's accounts.[29] Obviously, the employee allowed by Metrobank to examine the check was not verse and competent to handle such duty. These factual findings of the trial court is conclusive upon this court especially when such findings was affirmed the appellate court.[30] | |||||
|
2006-08-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before this Court.[5] We have consistently reiterated that the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court. The only time this Court will disregard the appellate court's factual findings, which are accorded great respect, is when these are based on speculation, surmises or conjectures or when these are not based on substantial evidence.[6] | |||||