Lawyerly

GR No. 179395

2010-12-15

MAXWELL HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. ERIC UYCHIAOCO YU

CARPIO, J.

Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, will not be disturbed by this Court.[10] As a rule, such findings by the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect, and are deemed final and conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11] The foregoing principle applies to the present controversy.

GR No. 180587

2009-03-20

SIMEON CABANG v. MR.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The issue is moreover factual and, to repeat that trite refrain, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the function of the Court to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A question of fact would arise in such event. Questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.[35] The rationale behind this doctrine is that a review of the findings of fact of the appellate tribunal is not a function this Court normally undertakes. The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[36] Although there are recognized exceptions[37] to this rule, none exists in this case to justify a departure therefrom.

GR No. 168819

2008-11-27

BUENAVENTURA v. AMPARO PASCUAL

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Time and again, this Court has stressed that its jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts. The trial court, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of their credibility. Hence, the findings of the trial court must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by this Court. Likewise, the Court has ruled that, when supported by sufficient evidence, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal. The rationale behind this doctrine is that review of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals is not a function this Court normally undertakes. The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[44]

GR No. 133179

2008-03-27

ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. LIM SIO WAN

VELASCO JR., J.

Additionally, this Court has held that the matter of negligence is also a factual question.[41] Thus, the finding of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, that the respective parties were negligent in the exercise of their obligations is also conclusive upon this Court.

GR NO. 130348

2007-09-03

MIGUEL SORIANO v. ANTERO SORIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

At the outset, in imputing as error the appellate court's appreciation of the genuineness of two supposed contracts executed by petitioners and Marilou P. Del Castillo, i.e., the Contract of (Sub)Lease vis-à-vis the Joint Venture Agreement, petitioners are plainly bringing into play questions of fact and the appreciation of evidence already made by no less than three courts of law below. In a manner of speaking, petitioners would have us review once again the factual determinations of the MeTC, as affirmed by not one court, but two higher courts already the RTC and the Court of Appeals. It has been consistently held that under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, in an appeal to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law must be raised by the petitioner;[43] that is, our jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing and correcting only errors of law, not of fact, the only power of the Court being to determine if the legal conclusions drawn from the findings of fact are correct.[44] The Court is not expected or required to examine or refute the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.[45]

GR NO. 163081

2007-06-15

ANITA UNGAB-VALEROSO v. AMANCIA UNGAB-GRADO

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioners contend that respondents cannot use the Affidavit of Acknowledgment signed by Anita and her mother as Anita was misled in signing it. A question involving the due execution of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment would require an inquiry into the appreciation of evidence by the trial court, a matter which this Court cannot do in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[11] The truth or falsehood of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment is a question of fact, of which this Court cannot take cognizance.[12] Moreover, the Affidavit of Acknowledgment, being a notarized document, enjoys the presumption of regularity.[13] Petitioners' mere allegation that Anita was misled by her mother into signing the affidavit could not overcome this presumption.

GR NO. 138939

2006-12-06

MR. v. ISABEL LEONEN

GARCIA, J.

In assailing the appellate court's decision, petitioners impute errors which basically involve questions of fact and the appreciation of evidence by the two courts below. This case furnishes another occasion for us to reiterate the settled principle that this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing and correcting only errors of law, not of fact, the only power of the Court being to determine if the legal conclusions drawn from the findings of fact are correct.[6] Absent any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support from the evidence on record, or that the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts, such findings must stand. The Court is not expected or required to examine or refute the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.[7] The Court finds no reason to depart from this settled rule, it appearing that the findings of fact by the courts a quo are fully substantiated by the evidence extant on record. Likewise, the Court has consistently ruled that the findings of fact by the CA, especially if such findings, as here, are affirmatory of those of the trial court, will not be disturbed on appeal.[8]

GR NO. 167270

2006-06-30

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HELEN JOYCE CAMPOS

CORONA, J.

The finding of negligence is a question of fact.[8] In the same vein, whether one acted in good faith or in bad faith is a factual issue.[9] Hence, they are not proper subjects of our discretionary power of judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which is concerned solely with questions of law.

GR NO. 140102

2006-02-09

UNION INDUSTRIES v. GASPAR VALES PRUDENCIO CERDENIA

CORONA, J.

We deny the prayer. As a rule, factual findings of the labor arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[13] Our jurisdiction in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law.[14]

GR NO. 133709

2005-04-28

CONSTANTE SICCUAN v. PEOPLE

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

It is a fundamental rule that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, such as the one at bar, is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact.[7] The rationale of this rule is founded on the fact that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not the proper venue to consider factual issues. It may, however, consider factual matters where the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts.[8]

GR No. 147575

2004-10-22

TERESITA B. MENDOZA v. BETH DAVID

CARPIO, J.

evidence to support the findings of fact by the lower court as borne by the records of the case.[16] In this case, the Court of Appeals admitted that without the pertinent documents and pleadings, it is deprived of a full opportunity to know all the facts and issues involved in the case.[17] The doctrine therefore is not applicable considering the absence of the records of the case to determine whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the lower court. Instead of relying on the doctrine, the Court of Appeals could have required Mendoza to submit additional documents in accordance with Section 3 (d), Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals[18] so that it would have a basis for its ruling. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals could order the Clerk of the RTC to elevate the original records of the case for a complete adjudication of the case.[19]

GR No. 143826

2003-08-28

HEIRS OF IGNACIA AGUILAR-REYES v. SPS. CIPRIANO MIJARES AND FLORENTINA MIJARES

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

While as a general rule, a party who has not appealed is not entitled to affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below, law and jurisprudence authorize a tribunal to consider errors, although unassigned, if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors.[51] In this case, though defendant Vicente Reyes did not appeal, the "plain error" committed by the court a quo as to the award of moral and exemplary damages must be corrected. These awards cannot be lumped together as was done by the trial court.[52] Moral and exemplary damages are different in nature, and require separate determination. Moral damages are awarded where the claimant experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury as a result of the act complained of.[53] The award of exemplary damages, on the other hand, is warranted when moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages were likewise awarded by the court.[54]

	GR No. 179395 2010-12-15	MAXWELL HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. ERIC UYCHIAOCO YU CARPIO, J.
Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, will not be disturbed by this Court.[10] As a rule, such findings by the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect, and are deemed final and conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11] The foregoing principle applies to the present controversy.
	GR No. 180587 2009-03-20	SIMEON CABANG v. MR. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The issue is moreover factual and, to repeat that trite refrain, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the function of the Court to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A question of fact would arise in such event. Questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.[35] The rationale behind this doctrine is that a review of the findings of fact of the appellate tribunal is not a function this Court normally undertakes. The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[36] Although there are recognized exceptions[37] to this rule, none exists in this case to justify a departure therefrom.
	GR No. 168819 2008-11-27	BUENAVENTURA v. AMPARO PASCUAL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again, this Court has stressed that its jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts. The trial court, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is in a better position to decide the question of their credibility. Hence, the findings of the trial court must be accorded the highest respect, even finality, by this Court. Likewise, the Court has ruled that, when supported by sufficient evidence, findings of fact by the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal. The rationale behind this doctrine is that review of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals is not a function this Court normally undertakes. The Court will not weigh the evidence all over again unless there is a showing that the findings of the lower court are totally devoid of support or are clearly erroneous so as to constitute serious abuse of discretion.[44]
	GR No. 133179 2008-03-27	ALLIED BANKING CORPORATION v. LIM SIO WAN VELASCO JR., J.
Additionally, this Court has held that the matter of negligence is also a factual question.[41] Thus, the finding of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, that the respective parties were negligent in the exercise of their obligations is also conclusive upon this Court.
	GR NO. 130348 2007-09-03	MIGUEL SORIANO v. ANTERO SORIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the outset, in imputing as error the appellate court's appreciation of the genuineness of two supposed contracts executed by petitioners and Marilou P. Del Castillo, i.e., the Contract of (Sub)Lease vis-à-vis the Joint Venture Agreement, petitioners are plainly bringing into play questions of fact and the appreciation of evidence already made by no less than three courts of law below. In a manner of speaking, petitioners would have us review once again the factual determinations of the MeTC, as affirmed by not one court, but two higher courts already the RTC and the Court of Appeals. It has been consistently held that under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, in an appeal to this Court by way of a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law must be raised by the petitioner;[43] that is, our jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing and correcting only errors of law, not of fact, the only power of the Court being to determine if the legal conclusions drawn from the findings of fact are correct.[44] The Court is not expected or required to examine or refute the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.[45]
	GR NO. 163081 2007-06-15	ANITA UNGAB-VALEROSO v. AMANCIA UNGAB-GRADO QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioners contend that respondents cannot use the Affidavit of Acknowledgment signed by Anita and her mother as Anita was misled in signing it. A question involving the due execution of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment would require an inquiry into the appreciation of evidence by the trial court, a matter which this Court cannot do in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[11] The truth or falsehood of the Affidavit of Acknowledgment is a question of fact, of which this Court cannot take cognizance.[12] Moreover, the Affidavit of Acknowledgment, being a notarized document, enjoys the presumption of regularity.[13] Petitioners' mere allegation that Anita was misled by her mother into signing the affidavit could not overcome this presumption.
	GR NO. 138939 2006-12-06	MR. v. ISABEL LEONEN GARCIA, J.
In assailing the appellate court's decision, petitioners impute errors which basically involve questions of fact and the appreciation of evidence by the two courts below. This case furnishes another occasion for us to reiterate the settled principle that this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing and correcting only errors of law, not of fact, the only power of the Court being to determine if the legal conclusions drawn from the findings of fact are correct.[6] Absent any showing that the findings complained of are totally devoid of support from the evidence on record, or that the judgment itself is based on misapprehension of facts, such findings must stand. The Court is not expected or required to examine or refute the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties.[7] The Court finds no reason to depart from this settled rule, it appearing that the findings of fact by the courts a quo are fully substantiated by the evidence extant on record. Likewise, the Court has consistently ruled that the findings of fact by the CA, especially if such findings, as here, are affirmatory of those of the trial court, will not be disturbed on appeal.[8]
	GR NO. 167270 2006-06-30	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. HELEN JOYCE CAMPOS CORONA, J.
The finding of negligence is a question of fact.[8] In the same vein, whether one acted in good faith or in bad faith is a factual issue.[9] Hence, they are not proper subjects of our discretionary power of judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which is concerned solely with questions of law.
	GR NO. 140102 2006-02-09	UNION INDUSTRIES v. GASPAR VALES PRUDENCIO CERDENIA CORONA, J.
We deny the prayer. As a rule, factual findings of the labor arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are binding on this Court. It is not our function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[13] Our jurisdiction in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law.[14]
	GR NO. 133709 2005-04-28	CONSTANTE SICCUAN v. PEOPLE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
It is a fundamental rule that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, such as the one at bar, is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact.[7] The rationale of this rule is founded on the fact that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not the proper venue to consider factual issues. It may, however, consider factual matters where the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts.[8]
	GR No. 147575 2004-10-22	TERESITA B. MENDOZA v. BETH DAVID CARPIO, J.
evidence to support the findings of fact by the lower court as borne by the records of the case.[16] In this case, the Court of Appeals admitted that without the pertinent documents and pleadings, it is deprived of a full opportunity to know all the facts and issues involved in the case.[17] The doctrine therefore is not applicable considering the absence of the records of the case to determine whether substantial evidence supports the factual findings of the lower court. Instead of relying on the doctrine, the Court of Appeals could have required Mendoza to submit additional documents in accordance with Section 3 (d), Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals[18] so that it would have a basis for its ruling. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals could order the Clerk of the RTC to elevate the original records of the case for a complete adjudication of the case.[19]
	GR No. 143826 2003-08-28	HEIRS OF IGNACIA AGUILAR-REYES v. SPS. CIPRIANO MIJARES AND FLORENTINA MIJARES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
While as a general rule, a party who has not appealed is not entitled to affirmative relief other than the ones granted in the decision of the court below, law and jurisprudence authorize a tribunal to consider errors, although unassigned, if they involve (1) errors affecting the lower court's jurisdiction over the subject matter, (2) plain errors not specified, and (3) clerical errors.[51] In this case, though defendant Vicente Reyes did not appeal, the "plain error" committed by the court a quo as to the award of moral and exemplary damages must be corrected. These awards cannot be lumped together as was done by the trial court.[52] Moral and exemplary damages are different in nature, and require separate determination. Moral damages are awarded where the claimant experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury as a result of the act complained of.[53] The award of exemplary damages, on the other hand, is warranted when moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages were likewise awarded by the court.[54]

PACIFIC AIRWAYS CORPORATION v. JOAQUIN TONDA