Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE V. LAGON v. HOOVEN COMALCO INDUSTRIES

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 178169 2015-01-12	NFF INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION v. G & L ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE & GERARDO TRINIDAD PERALTA, J.
The question is basically factual since it involves an evaluation of the conflicting evidence presented by the opposing parties, including the existence and relevance of specific surrounding circumstances, to determine the truth or falsity of alleged facts.[28]
	GR No. 161387 2009-03-13	SPS. ADRIANO AND NORMA SIOSON and SPS. ARNIEL AND EDITH SIOSON v. VS. CARPIO, J.
In general, only questions of law are appealable to this Court under Rule 45. However, where the factual findings of the trial court are in conflict with those of the appellate court and when the appellate court manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion, this Court has the authority to review and, if necessary, reverse the factual findings of the lower courts.[25] This is precisely the situation in this case.
	GR No. 178511 2008-12-04	MA. BELEN FLORDELIZA C. ANG-ABAYA v. EDUARDO G. ANG YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
These serious allegations are supported by official and other documents, such as board resolutions, treasurer's affidavits and written communication from the respondent Eduardo himself, who appears to have withheld his objections to these charges. His silence virtually amounts to an acquiescence.[43] Taken together, all these serve to justify petitioners' allegation that Eduardo was not acting in good faith and for a legitimate purpose in making his demand for inspection of the corporate books. Otherwise stated, there is lack of probable cause to support the allegation that petitioners violated Section 74 of the Corporation Code in refusing respondent's request for examination of the corporation books.
	GR No. 154503 2008-02-29	UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB and VIVIAN M. APDUHAN v. NLRC and AMALIA P. KAWADA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, the finding of the NLRC that Apduhan knew for a fact that the certification presented by private respondent referred to the latter and not to another person is a mere conjecture. There is no evidence to sustain the same. This Court has consistently held that litigations cannot be properly resolved by suppositions, deductions, or even presumptions, with no basis in evidence, for the truth must have to be determined by the hard rules of admissibility and proof.[53]
	GR NO. 153057 2006-08-07	MR. v. G.V.T. ENGINEERING SERVICES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court finds that respondent was only able to establish the amount of P20,772.05, which is the sum of all the retention fees appearing in the bills presented by respondent in evidence.[34] Settled is the rule that actual or compensatory damages cannot be presumed but must be proved with reasonable degree of certainty.[35] A court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures or guesswork as to the fact of damage but must depend upon competent proof that they have indeed been suffered by the injured party and on the basis of the best evidence obtainable as to the actual amount thereof.[36] It must point out specific facts that could provide the gauge for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages were borne.[37] Considering that the documentary evidence presented by respondent to prove the sum of retention fees sought to be recovered totals an amount which is less than that granted by the trial court, it is only proper to reduce such award in accordance with the evidence presented.
	GR No. 136773 2003-06-25	MILAGROS MANONGSONG v. FELOMENA JUMAQUIO ESTIMO CARPIO, J.
The issues raised by petitioners are mainly factual in nature. In general, only questions of law are appealable to this Court under Rule 45. However, where the factual findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals conflict, this Court has the authority to review and, if necessary, reverse the findings of fact of the lower courts.[22] This is precisely the situation in this case.
	GR NO. 130397 2002-01-17	PEOPLE v. HONORATO GALVEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As to the award of damages, this Court affirms the amounts of actual damages and civil indemnity for the death of Alvin Vinculado awarded by the trial court. However, this Court finds the award of moral damages in the amount of Two Million Pesos to be excessive and not in accord with prevailing jurisprudence. The amount of P50,000.00 for each of the offended parties, namely, Miguel Vinculado, Levi Vinculado and the heirs of Alvin Vinculado, or a total sum of P150,000.00, is deemed reasonable. It must be stressed that the purpose of the award of moral damages is not to enrich the heirs of the victim but to compensate them for the injuries to their feelings.[12] The award of attorney's fees is also excessive and is hereby reduced to P100,000.00. The Court has the power to reduce the amount of attorney's fees to render it reasonable and conscionable.[13]
	GR No. 135038 2001-11-16	ROLANDO Y. TAN v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is true that factual issues are not within the province of this Court, as it is not a trier of facts and is not required to examine or contrast the oral and documentary evidence de novo. Nevertheless, this Court has the authority to review and, in proper cases, reverse the factual findings of lower courts in the following instances: (a) when the findings of fact of the trial court are in conflict with those of the appellate court; (b) when the judgment of the appellate court is based on a misapprehension of facts; and, (c) when the appellate court manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[30]