Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR NO. 172931 2009-06-18	REPUBLIC v. RTC QUISUMBING, J.
The ruling of the Court of Appeals, based on the abovementioned findings of fact, is upheld by this Court. The jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals is limited to reviewing or revising errors of law. The findings of facts of the latter are conclusive for it is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh such evidence all over again.[34] Our jurisdiction is in principle limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals. Factual findings of courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive on this Court unless these findings are not supported by the evidence on record.[35]
	GR NO. 133168 2006-03-28	REPUBLIC v. BENJAMIN GUERRERO GARCIA, J.
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the essential issue raised in this Petition the presence of fraud is factual. As a general rule, this Court does not review factual matters, as only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court. And as the Court has consistently held, factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive on this Court,[7] save when the judgment of the appellate court is based on a misapprehension of facts or factual inferences manifestly incorrect or when that court overlooked certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[8] Obviously, petitioner is invoking these exceptions toward having the Court review the factual determinations of the CA.
	GR No. 147125 2004-01-14	SHOPPES MANILA v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
We must stress that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the CA decisions.[16] Questions of fact are not entertained.[17] The Court is not a trier of facts, and in labor cases; this doctrine applies with greater force. Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.[18] The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly, when passed upon and upheld by the CA, they are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[19]