This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be raised in this Court. Th e rationale for the rule is that the Court is not a trier of facts; it is not to re-examine and calibrate the evidence on record, as such task is assigned to the trial court. The trial court's findings, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court unless there is preponderant evidence that the lower court ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent and substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would modify or reverse the outcome of the case.[58] The Court may look into and resolve factual issues in exceptional cases such as when the findings and conclusions of the trial court are contrary to evidence on record or tainted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2002-04-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On this score, we agree with private respondents. As found by both the DARAB and the Court of Appeals, Carolina had failed to exercise her right to choose a substitute for the deceased tenant, from among those qualified, within the statutory period.[19] No cogent reason compels us to disturb the findings of the Court of Appeals. As a general rule, findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court, provided they are borne out by the record or based on substantial evidence.[20] | |||||
|
2001-09-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| On the other hand, the July 1, 1997 Resolution of the trial court has long become final and executory in regard to petitioners, who failed to appeal within the reglementary period. Hence, this Court can no longer grant them any relief. They are estopped from questioning the effects or consequences emanating from the partial execution of the questioned Writ. In this Court's words: "The rule is clear that no modification of judgment could be granted to a party who did not appeal. It is enshrined as one of the basic principles in our rules of procedure, specifically to avoid ambiguity in the presentation of issues, facilitate the setting forth of arguments by the parties, and aid the court in making its determinations. It is not installed in the rules merely to make litigations laborious and tedious for the parties. It is there for a reason."[20] | |||||
|
2001-03-12 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The judgment in Civil Case No. Q-26392 has become final and executory. What Amor and Victoria should have done was to either timely appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals under Rule 41, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, or to seasonably file a "petition for relief from judgment" under Rule 38.[39] A party who fails to acquire complete relief from a decision of a court has various remedies to correct it. A party may move for a correction or clarification of judgment, or even seek its modification through ordinary appeal.[40] This they did not do. There must, therefore, be an end to litigation.[41] | |||||