This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-02-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The first set is factual. Petitioners seek to establish a set of facts contrary to the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts. However, as well established in our jurisprudence, only errors of law are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45.[17] The trial court, having had the opportunity to personally observe and analyze the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, is in a better position to pass judgment on their credibility.[18] More importantly, factual findings of the trial court, when amply supported by evidence on record and affirmed by the appellate court, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal.[19] While there are exceptional circumstances[20] when these findings may be set aside, none of them is present in this case. | |||||
|
2002-09-12 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| evidence on record, are binding upon this Court and will not be disturbed on appeal.[17] This Court is not a trier of facts.[18] There are exceptional instances when this Court may disregard factual findings of the trial court, namely: a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or conjectures; b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or | |||||