This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-04-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| COCOFED moved to set the case for trial,[55] but the Republic opposed the motion.[56] On their part, Cojuangco, et al. also moved to set the trial,[57] with the Republic similarly opposing the motion.[58] | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| To disregard the separate juridical personality of a corporation, the wrongdoing must be established clearly and convincingly. It cannot be presumed.[33] (Emphasis supplied.) | |||||
|
2010-06-16 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we note that this recourse is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 1 of the Rule, such a petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly alleged in the appropriate pleading. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides for a given set of facts drawn from the evidence presented. Stated differently, there should be nothing in dispute as to the state of facts; the issue to be resolved is merely the correctness of the conclusion drawn from the said facts. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the probative value of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query requires a reevaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, then the issue is necessarily factual.[6] | |||||