This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-01-22 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth. (Emphasis supplied) Evident it is from the above that the function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. And, as a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, more so when, as here, such findings are undisturbed by the appellate court. This factual determination, as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal, save only for the most compelling reasons,[10] such as when that determination is clearly without evidentiary support or when grave abuse of discretion has been committed.[11] This is as it should be since the Court, in petitions for review of CA decisions under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, usually limits its inquiry only to questions of law. Stated otherwise, it is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence or premises supportive of the factual holdings of lower courts.[12] The Court refrains from further scrutiny of factual findings of trial courts, more so when those findings are affirmed by the CA, as here. To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which it is not meant to be.[13] | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, factual matters cannot be raised before this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.[37] This Court at this stage is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. We are thus constrained from conducting further scrutiny of the findings of fact made by trial courts.[38] Otherwise, we would convert this Court into a trier of facts.[39] | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Other points raised by petitioner in connection with the first issue, such as the date of actual release of the loan and whether private respondents were the cause of the delay in the release of the loan, are factual. Since petitioner has not shown that the instant case is one of the exceptions to the basic rule that only questions of law can be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,[10] factual matters need not tarry us now. On these points we are bound by the findings of the appellate and trial courts. | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The first issue is factual. Basic is the rule that factual issues are beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review, for it is not our function to review evidence all over again.[5] Although there are exceptions, petitioner did not show that this case is one of them.[6] Factual findings of the trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon us and, generally, will not be reviewed on appeal.[7] | |||||