Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ETERTON MULTI-RESOURCES CORPORATION v. FILIPINO PIPE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185590 2014-12-03	METROPOLITAN BANK v. LEY CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND SPS. MANUEL LEY AND JANET LEY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
First, the Bank's petition suffers from a fatal infirmity. In particular, it contravenes the elementary rule of appellate procedure that an appeal to this Court by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court "shall raise only questions of law."[17] The rule is based on the nature of this Court's appellate function this Court is not a trier of facts[18] and on the evidentiary weight given to the findings of fact of the trial court which have been affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals they are conclusive on this Court.[19] While there are recognized exceptions to the rule,[20] this Court sees no reason to apply the exception and not the rule in this case.
	GR No. 163182 2012-10-24	TOM TAN v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO F. YAMSON MENDOZA, J.
It bears stressing that the evaluation of witnesses and other pieces of evidence by the RTC is "accorded great respect and finality in the absence of any indication that it overlooked certain facts or circumstances of weight and influence, which if reconsidered, would alter the result of the case."[30] Emphasis should also be placed on the fact that both the RTC and the CA similarly evaluated the evidence presented during the trial and reached the same conclusion. As a rule, factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the appellate court, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[31]
	GR No. 171050 2012-07-04	FAR EAST BANK v. TENTMAKERS GROUP MENDOZA, J.
It should be noted that the questions raised in this petition involve the correctness of the factual findings of the CA. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. An inquiry into the veracity of the factual findings and conclusions of the CA is not the function of this Court, for this Court is not a trier of facts. Neither is it its function to reexamine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[21]
	GR No. 183308 2012-04-25	INSULAR INVESTMENT v. CAPITAL ONE EQUITIES CORP. MENDOZA, J.
The issue raised by IITC is factual in nature as it requires the Court to delve into the records and review the evidence presented by the parties to determine the validity of the findings of both the RTC and the CA as to IITC's role in the transactions in question. These are purely factual issues which this Court cannot review.[27] Well-established is the principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[28]
	GR No. 170290 2012-04-11	PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v. CITIBANK MENDOZA, J.
Noticeably, PDIC does not dispute the veracity of the internal transactions of the respondents which gave rise to the issuance of the certificates of time deposit for the funds the subject of the present dispute. Neither does it question the findings of the RTC and the CA that the money placements were made, and were payable, outside of the Philippines, thus, making them fall under the exclusions to deposit liabilities. PDIC also fails to impugn the truth of the testimony of John David Shaffer, then a Fiscal Agent and Head of the Assessment Section of the FDIC, that inter-branch deposits were excluded from the assessment base. Therefore, the determination of facts of the lower courts shall be accepted at face value by this Court, following the well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court, and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[33]