Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. CARLOS LEOBRERA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 176986 2016-01-13	NISSAN CAR LEASE PHILS. v. LICA MANAGEMENT JARDELEZA, J.
Factual findings of the CA are binding and conclusive on the parties and upon this Court and will not be reviewed or disturbed on appeal. While the rule admits of certain exceptions,[65] NCLPl failed to prove that any of the exceptions applies in this case.
	GR No. 171722 2016-01-11	REMEDIOS PASCUAL v. BENITO BURGOS LEONEN, J.
The Rules of Court require that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45.[119] This court is not a trier of facts. It will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are "final, binding[,] or conclusive on the parties and upon this [c]ourt"[120] when supported by substantial evidence.[121] Factual findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed nor disturbed on appeal to this court.[122]
	GR No. 167017 2009-06-22	SERAFIN CHENG v. SPS. VITTORIO AND MA. HELEN DONINI CORONA, J.
Petitioner is entitled to moral damages but not in the amount of P500,000 awarded by the RTC, which the Court finds to be excessive. While trial courts are given discretion to determine the amount of moral damages, it "should not be palpably and scandalously excessive."[48] Moral damages are not meant to enrich a person at the expense of the other but are awarded only to allow the former to obtain means, diversion or amusements that will serve to alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone due to the other person's culpable action.[49] It must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong committed.[50] The award of P100,000 as moral damages is sufficient and reasonable under the circumstances.
	GR NO. 150780 2006-05-05	NESTLE PHILIPPINES v. FY SONS CORONA, J.
. . . findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court. This rule may be disregarded only when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or are not supported by the evidence on record. But there is no ground to apply this exception to the instant case. This Court will not assess all over again the evidence adduced by the parties particularly where as in this case the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals completely coincide.[24]