This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| However, these presumptions are merely disputable presumptions and may be overcome by contradicting evidence. The burden of proof lies with the Government to prove by preponderance of evidence that the NAIA-IPT III suffered from structural defects. “Preponderance of evidence” is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is usually considered to be synonymous with the term “greater weight of evidence” or “greater weight of credible evidence.”[269] | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Notably, the issues raised in the petition are factual in nature. Essentially, Aquiles asks the Court to review the factual determination of the CA. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts and is not to review or calibrate the evidence on record.[12] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact by the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions.[13] An acceptable exception is where there is a conflict between the factual determination of the trial court and that of the appellate court. In such a case, it becomes imperative to digress from this general rule and revisit the factual circumstances surrounding the controversy.[14] | |||||