Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ALFA RTW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164804 2009-01-30	VIRGINIA A. SUGUE v. TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
At the outset, it should be stated that the main issue in this case involves a question of fact. It is an established rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law.[23] This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[24]
	GR NO. 149090 2005-02-11	BENEDICTO A. CAJUCOM VII v. TPI PHILIPPINES CEMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court:[3] (1) the legal conclusions made by the lower tribunal are speculative;[4] (2) its inferences are manifestly mistaken,[5] absurd or impossible; (3) the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[6] (5) the findings of fact of the lower tribunals are conflicting;[7] (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues; (7) the Court of Appeals' findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties;[8] (8) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked facts not disputed which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion; (9) the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[9]
	GR NO. 159121 2005-02-03	PAMPLONA PLANTATION COMPANY v. RODEL TINGHIL PANGANIBAN, J.
Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court:[11] (1) the legal conclusions made by the lower tribunal are speculative;[12] (2) its inferences are manifestly mistaken,[13] absurd, or impossible; (3) the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[14] (5) the findings of fact of the lower tribunals are conflicting;[15] (6) the CA went beyond the issues; (7) the CA's findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties;[16] (8) the CA manifestly overlooked facts not disputed which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion; (9) the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[17]
	GR No. 158922 2004-05-28	FERNANDO GO v. CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
It is a well-established rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the Court of Appeals via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, is limited to reviewing errors of law.[23] This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[24]