This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-03-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| For the most part, petitioners raise questions of fact which, as a general rule, are not proper subjects of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is confined to questions of law.[24] This Court is not a trier of facts and cannot, therefore, be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties in the lower courts and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the court a quo and the appellate court were correct in their appreciation of the evidence.[25] Among the recognized exceptions to this rule, however is when the factual findings of the trial court are, as here, different from those of the CA.[26] Even then, a re-evaluation of factual issues would only be warranted when the assailed findings are totally bereft of support in the records or are so patently erroneous as to amount to grave abuse of discretion. So long as such findings are supported by the record, the findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this Court, even if contrary to those of the trial court.[27] | |||||
|
2008-06-27 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| While the issue of Corinthian's alleged negligence is factual in character,[38] a review by this Court is proper because the CA's factual findings differ from those of the RTC's.[39] Thus, after a meticulous review of the evidence on record, we hold that the CA committed no reversible error when it deviated from the findings of fact of the RTC. The CA's findings and conclusions are substantiated by the evidence on record and are more in accord with law and reason. Indeed, it is clear that Corinthian failed to exercise the requisite diligence in insuring that the Cuasos abide by its Manual of Rules and Regulations, thereby resulting in the encroachment on the Tanjangcos' property. | |||||
|
2005-03-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| From the above-mentioned assignment of errors, petitioner palpably disputes the findings of facts and the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court and later affirmed by respondent court. It is apodictic that in a petition for review, only questions of law may be raised[18] for the reason that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the Court of Appeals.[19] Corollarily, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court bind this Court when such findings are supported by substantial evidence. In the case at hand, no reversible error could be attributed to the Court of Appeals in espousing conclusions of facts similar to the trial court on petitioner's liability for the damages suffered by private respondents.[20] | |||||
|
2004-03-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 are generally limited to questions of law. Moreover, factual findings of the Court of Appeals, particularly when they affirm those of the trial court, are binding on this Court.[19] | |||||