Lawyerly

GR No. 187678

2013-04-10

SPS. IGNACIO F. JUICO v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

In interpreting a contract, its provisions should not be read in isolation but in relation to each other and in their entirety so as to render them effective, having in mind the intention of the parties and the purpose to be achieved. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.[43]

GR No. 168800

2009-04-16

NEW REGENT SOURCES v. TEOFILO VICTOR TANJUATCO

CARPIO, J.

In its petition, NRSI questions the trial court's dismissal of its complaint upon a demurrer to evidence and invites a calibration of the evidence on record to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis for the trial court's order. This factual analysis, however, would involve questions of fact which are improper in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is well established that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[19] A question of law exists when there is doubt or difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[20] There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[21] Otherwise, there is a question of fact. Since it raises essentially questions of fact, the instant petition must be denied.

GR Nos. 169408 & 170144

2008-04-30

HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. DYNAMIC PLANNERS

VELASCO JR., J.

Hanjin is wrong, a peso-dollar payment mix being effectively contemplated in the subcontract. In construing a contract, the provisions thereof should not be read in isolation, but in relation to each other and in their entirety so as to render them effective, having in mind the intention of the parties and the purpose to be achieved.[31] Thus, Article 1374 of the Civil Code provides that "the various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which result from all of them taken jointly."

GR NO. 149285

2006-08-30

GODOFREDO MORALES v. SKILLS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

At the outset, it must be stressed that the resolution of the issue of whether respondent Skills International could be held solidarily liable for the alleged illegal dismissal of petitioner necessarily hinges on the primordial question of whether respondent Skills International was the one responsible for his deployment abroad. This indubitably raises a question of fact which is not a proper subject of a Petition for Review on Certiorari. It is axiomatic that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[24]

GR NO. 152616

2006-03-31

PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ

CARPIO, J.

Petitioner has raised a factual issue, i.e., whether Anita was illegally dismissed, which is not proper in a petition for review. We have consistently ruled that it is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, our jurisdiction being generally limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the trial court or administrative agency.[19] Nevertheless, since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the Labor Arbiter are at variance with those of the NLRC, we resolve to review the records and the evidence presented by the parties.[20]

GR NO. 157029

2005-12-15

JIMMY KENT RAMBUYON v. FIESTA BRANDS

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioners are raising factual issues which are not proper in a petition for review. Well-entrenched is the rule that in an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed. The question of whether petitioners were regular employees and were dismissed without notice and hearing is a factual issue. It had been exhaustively discussed and ruled upon in the negative by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. It bears stressing that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies that have acquired expertise are generally accorded great respect and even finality, if they are supported by substantial evidence.[23]

GR NO. 155879

2005-12-02

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON

QUISUMBING, J.

In interpreting a contract, its provisions should be read not in isolation but in relation to each other and in their entirety so as to render them effective, having in mind the intention of the parties and the purpose to be achieved. The various stipulations of a contract are to be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.[16] Thus, in this case, the phrase "any subsequent administrative orders" in paragraph 2.04 should not be read in isolation, as what petitioner has erroneously done, but should be read together with the provisions of paragraph 7.17. Said paragraph provides that the lease contract "may not ... be modified or altered except by an instrument in writing duly signed by the parties hereto and/or by administrative order duly issued/promulgated hereafter", that is, after May 29, 1998, the date the parties signed the lease contract. Accordingly, for an administrative order to be incorporated into the contract and thereby effect an adjustment of the monthly rental, it is necessary that the administrative order amending the rates be issued or promulgated after May 29, 1998. Such is not the case of A.O. No. 1, Series of 1998, which was issued much earlier on April 2, 1998.

GR NO. 152514

2005-08-12

LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING v. EDITHA C. LLAMERA

QUISUMBING, J.

At the outset, we must stress that indeed petitioners have raised a factual issue, which is not proper in a petition for review. In an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[9] The matter of whether the quality control department where respondent worked was singled out is a factual issue, which had been exhaustively discussed and ruled upon by the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 152514

2005-07-12

LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING v. EDITHA C. LLAMERA

QUISUMBING, J.

At the outset, we must stress that indeed petitioners have raised a factual issue, which is not proper in a petition for review. In an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[9] The matter of whether the quality control department where respondent worked was singled out is a factual issue, which had been exhaustively discussed and ruled upon by the Court of Appeals.

GR No. 157581

2004-12-01

MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. AIRSPAN CORPORATION

QUISUMBING, J.

In a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[18] The matter of whether the increases implemented by petitioner were fair and reasonable appears to be a factual issue, which had been discussed and ruled upon by the RTC, albeit collaterally. It is not now the province of this Court to make a binding determination as to the fairness and reasonableness of the disputed increases.

GR No. 150976

2004-10-18

CECILIA CASTILLO v. ANGELES BALINGHASAY

QUISUMBING, J.

Said contention is not for this Court to pass upon, involving as it does a factual question, which is not proper in this petition. In an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[13] Besides, respondents did not adduce persuasive evidence, but only bare allegations, to support their suspicion. The presumption that in the amendment process, the ordinary course of business has been followed[14] and that official duty has been regularly performed[15] on the part of the SEC, applies in this case.

GR No. 147372

2004-05-27

CAEZAR Z. LANUZA v. MA. CONSUELO MUÑOZ

QUISUMBING, J.

In this petition now before us, only questions of law may be reviewed.[20] Resolving this case on the merits, as prayed by respondent, would involve a determination of factual issues which, we hasten to add, are not within the province of this Court. At the risk of being tedious, we must stress that this Court is not a trier of facts. We are confined to the review of errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals, whose findings of fact are conclusive, absent any showing that such findings are entirely devoid of any substantiation on record.[21] The remand of the detainer case for further proceedings by the municipal trial court is clearly in order.

	GR No. 187678 2013-04-10	SPS. IGNACIO F. JUICO v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In interpreting a contract, its provisions should not be read in isolation but in relation to each other and in their entirety so as to render them effective, having in mind the intention of the parties and the purpose to be achieved. The various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.[43]
	GR No. 168800 2009-04-16	NEW REGENT SOURCES v. TEOFILO VICTOR TANJUATCO CARPIO, J.
In its petition, NRSI questions the trial court's dismissal of its complaint upon a demurrer to evidence and invites a calibration of the evidence on record to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis for the trial court's order. This factual analysis, however, would involve questions of fact which are improper in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is well established that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[19] A question of law exists when there is doubt or difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[20] There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[21] Otherwise, there is a question of fact. Since it raises essentially questions of fact, the instant petition must be denied.
	GR Nos. 169408 & 170144 2008-04-30	HANJIN HEAVY INDUSTRIES v. DYNAMIC PLANNERS VELASCO JR., J.
Hanjin is wrong, a peso-dollar payment mix being effectively contemplated in the subcontract. In construing a contract, the provisions thereof should not be read in isolation, but in relation to each other and in their entirety so as to render them effective, having in mind the intention of the parties and the purpose to be achieved.[31] Thus, Article 1374 of the Civil Code provides that "the various stipulations of a contract shall be interpreted together attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which result from all of them taken jointly."
	GR NO. 149285 2006-08-30	GODOFREDO MORALES v. SKILLS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the resolution of the issue of whether respondent Skills International could be held solidarily liable for the alleged illegal dismissal of petitioner necessarily hinges on the primordial question of whether respondent Skills International was the one responsible for his deployment abroad. This indubitably raises a question of fact which is not a proper subject of a Petition for Review on Certiorari. It is axiomatic that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[24]
	GR NO. 152616 2006-03-31	PHILEMPLOY SERVICES v. ANITA RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
Petitioner has raised a factual issue, i.e., whether Anita was illegally dismissed, which is not proper in a petition for review. We have consistently ruled that it is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, our jurisdiction being generally limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the trial court or administrative agency.[19] Nevertheless, since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the Labor Arbiter are at variance with those of the NLRC, we resolve to review the records and the evidence presented by the parties.[20]
	GR NO. 157029 2005-12-15	JIMMY KENT RAMBUYON v. FIESTA BRANDS QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners are raising factual issues which are not proper in a petition for review. Well-entrenched is the rule that in an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed. The question of whether petitioners were regular employees and were dismissed without notice and hearing is a factual issue. It had been exhaustively discussed and ruled upon in the negative by both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. It bears stressing that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies that have acquired expertise are generally accorded great respect and even finality, if they are supported by substantial evidence.[23]
	GR NO. 155879 2005-12-02	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. HENRICK F. GINGOYON QUISUMBING, J.
In interpreting a contract, its provisions should be read not in isolation but in relation to each other and in their entirety so as to render them effective, having in mind the intention of the parties and the purpose to be achieved. The various stipulations of a contract are to be interpreted together, attributing to the doubtful ones that sense which may result from all of them taken jointly.[16] Thus, in this case, the phrase "any subsequent administrative orders" in paragraph 2.04 should not be read in isolation, as what petitioner has erroneously done, but should be read together with the provisions of paragraph 7.17. Said paragraph provides that the lease contract "may not ... be modified or altered except by an instrument in writing duly signed by the parties hereto and/or by administrative order duly issued/promulgated hereafter", that is, after May 29, 1998, the date the parties signed the lease contract. Accordingly, for an administrative order to be incorporated into the contract and thereby effect an adjustment of the monthly rental, it is necessary that the administrative order amending the rates be issued or promulgated after May 29, 1998. Such is not the case of A.O. No. 1, Series of 1998, which was issued much earlier on April 2, 1998.
	GR NO. 152514 2005-08-12	LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING v. EDITHA C. LLAMERA QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, we must stress that indeed petitioners have raised a factual issue, which is not proper in a petition for review. In an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[9] The matter of whether the quality control department where respondent worked was singled out is a factual issue, which had been exhaustively discussed and ruled upon by the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 152514 2005-07-12	LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING v. EDITHA C. LLAMERA QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, we must stress that indeed petitioners have raised a factual issue, which is not proper in a petition for review. In an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[9] The matter of whether the quality control department where respondent worked was singled out is a factual issue, which had been exhaustively discussed and ruled upon by the Court of Appeals.
	GR No. 157581 2004-12-01	MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY v. AIRSPAN CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
In a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[18] The matter of whether the increases implemented by petitioner were fair and reasonable appears to be a factual issue, which had been discussed and ruled upon by the RTC, albeit collaterally. It is not now the province of this Court to make a binding determination as to the fairness and reasonableness of the disputed increases.
	GR No. 150976 2004-10-18	CECILIA CASTILLO v. ANGELES BALINGHASAY QUISUMBING, J.
Said contention is not for this Court to pass upon, involving as it does a factual question, which is not proper in this petition. In an appeal via certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[13] Besides, respondents did not adduce persuasive evidence, but only bare allegations, to support their suspicion. The presumption that in the amendment process, the ordinary course of business has been followed[14] and that official duty has been regularly performed[15] on the part of the SEC, applies in this case.
	GR No. 147372 2004-05-27	CAEZAR Z. LANUZA v. MA. CONSUELO MUÑOZ QUISUMBING, J.
In this petition now before us, only questions of law may be reviewed.[20] Resolving this case on the merits, as prayed by respondent, would involve a determination of factual issues which, we hasten to add, are not within the province of this Court. At the risk of being tedious, we must stress that this Court is not a trier of facts. We are confined to the review of errors of law ascribed to the Court of Appeals, whose findings of fact are conclusive, absent any showing that such findings are entirely devoid of any substantiation on record.[21] The remand of the detainer case for further proceedings by the municipal trial court is clearly in order.

BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS v. JESUS G. SANTAMARIA