Lawyerly

GR No. 170671

2015-08-19

BRION, J.

We have, however, recognized several exceptional situations that call for a re-evaluation of the CA's factual conclusions, among them, the situation when the CA's findings are contrary to that of the trial court, and when the CA manifestly overlooks relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would lead to a different conclusion.[3]

GR No. 168258

2015-08-17

RICARDO V. QUINTOS v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

It is settled that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again. Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[40] The seventh exception clearly applies in this case.

GR No. 209843

2015-03-25

TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION v. KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO.

VELASCO JR., J.

On a final note, the policy according factual findings of courts a quo great respect, if not finality, is not binding where they have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[54] So it must be here; the nature of the products involved materially affects the outcome of the instant case. A reversal of the appellate court's Decision is then in order.

GR No. 206562

2015-01-21

UNICOL MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. DELIA MALIPOT

PERALTA, J.

(1) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;[17] (6) When in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[18] Normally, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. However, since the findings of the CA and the NLRC were conflicting, it is incumbent upon this Court to wade through the records to find out if there was enough basis for the CA's reversal of the NLRC decision.

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. 197842

2013-10-09

JAIME P. ADRIANO v. ALBERTO LASALA

MENDOZA, J.

In this case, the petition is primarily anchored on whether respondents breached the subject security services agreement. In the case of Engr. Apolinario Dueñas v. Alice Guce-Africa,[7] it was held that the determination of the existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45. The philosophy behind this rule is that the Court is not a trier of facts. There are, however, well-established exceptions, as reiterated by this Court in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank,[8] to wit:The jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not the Court's function to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again. Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.

GR No. 171038

2012-06-20

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF JUAN LOPEZ

BRION, J.

We find the present issue to be a question of fact that is not reviewable by this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Section 1 thereof provides that "[t]he petition x x x shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth." To differentiate, a question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts while a question of law exists if the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts;[26] there is a question of fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, and there is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without the need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence.[27] The issue of the correctness of the average selling price data used in this case is clearly a question of fact that can only be determined by a review of the evidence presented by the parties.

GR No. 195167

2011-11-16

FERNANDO CO v. LINA B. VARGAS

CARPIO, J.

As a rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and this Court will not review them on appeal,[16] subject to exceptions such as those enumerated by this Court in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank:[17]

GR No. 187720

2011-05-30

TRINIDAD ALICER v. ALBERTO COMPAS

CARPIO, J.

We agree with the Court of Appeals in sustaining the default order of the trial court. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in declaring petitioners in default because they failed to appear during the pre-trial conference. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, specifically that petitioners were served notice of the pre-trial conference, is conclusive upon this Court which is limited to reviewing errors of law.[8] It is not this Court's function to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again.[9]

GR No. 174725

2011-01-26

ALEXANDER B. GATUS v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

A question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts while a question of law exists if the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. There is a question of fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. However, if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence, the question is one of law.[22]

	GR No. 170671 2015-08-19	FILADELFA T. LAUSA v. MAURICIA QUILATON BRION, J.
We have, however, recognized several exceptional situations that call for a re-evaluation of the CA's factual conclusions, among them, the situation when the CA's findings are contrary to that of the trial court, and when the CA manifestly overlooks relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would lead to a different conclusion.[3]
	GR No. 168258 2015-08-17	RICARDO V. QUINTOS v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is settled that the jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not the function of the Court to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again. Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[40] The seventh exception clearly applies in this case.
	GR No. 209843 2015-03-25	TAIWAN KOLIN CORPORATION v. KOLIN ELECTRONICS CO. VELASCO JR., J.
On a final note, the policy according factual findings of courts a quo great respect, if not finality, is not binding where they have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact or circumstance of weight and substance.[54] So it must be here; the nature of the products involved materially affects the outcome of the instant case. A reversal of the appellate court's Decision is then in order.
	GR No. 206562 2015-01-21	UNICOL MANAGEMENT SERVICES v. DELIA MALIPOT PERALTA, J.
(1) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) When there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting;[17] (6) When in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) When the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) When the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) When the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[18] Normally, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. However, since the findings of the CA and the NLRC were conflicting, it is incumbent upon this Court to wade through the records to find out if there was enough basis for the CA's reversal of the NLRC decision.
	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. 197842 2013-10-09	JAIME P. ADRIANO v. ALBERTO LASALA MENDOZA, J.
In this case, the petition is primarily anchored on whether respondents breached the subject security services agreement. In the case of Engr. Apolinario Dueñas v. Alice Guce-Africa,[7] it was held that the determination of the existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45. The philosophy behind this rule is that the Court is not a trier of facts. There are, however, well-established exceptions, as reiterated by this Court in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank,[8] to wit:The jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not the Court's function to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again. Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
	GR No. 171038 2012-06-20	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF JUAN LOPEZ BRION, J.
We find the present issue to be a question of fact that is not reviewable by this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Section 1 thereof provides that "[t]he petition x x x shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth." To differentiate, a question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts while a question of law exists if the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts;[26] there is a question of fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, and there is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without the need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence.[27] The issue of the correctness of the average selling price data used in this case is clearly a question of fact that can only be determined by a review of the evidence presented by the parties.
	GR No. 195167 2011-11-16	FERNANDO CO v. LINA B. VARGAS CARPIO, J.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and this Court will not review them on appeal,[16] subject to exceptions such as those enumerated by this Court in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank:[17]
	GR No. 187720 2011-05-30	TRINIDAD ALICER v. ALBERTO COMPAS CARPIO, J.
We agree with the Court of Appeals in sustaining the default order of the trial court. There was no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in declaring petitioners in default because they failed to appear during the pre-trial conference. The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, specifically that petitioners were served notice of the pre-trial conference, is conclusive upon this Court which is limited to reviewing errors of law.[8] It is not this Court's function to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again.[9]
	GR No. 174725 2011-01-26	ALEXANDER B. GATUS v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
A question of fact exists when the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts while a question of law exists if the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. There is a question of fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. However, if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence, the question is one of law.[22]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. TRADERS ROYAL BANK and PRIVATIZATION