Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CAMILO A. ESGUERRA v. UNITED PHILIPPINES LINES

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 202950 2015-04-06	BALTAZAR IBOT v. HEIRS OF FRANCISCO TAYCO REYES, J.
WHETHER PRESCRIPTION AND EQUITABLE LACHES HAD SET IN AGAINST THE PETITIONER TO WARRANT RECONVEYANCE OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY TO RESPONDENTS.[30] Foremost, it should be stressed that this Court is not a trier of facts. Only questions of law and not questions of fact may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.[31] In the exercise of its power of review, the factual findings of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court and it is not our function to re-evaluate evidence all over again. However, it is a recognized exception that when the CA's findings are incongruent to those of the RTC, as in this case, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[32]
	GR No. 191034 2014-10-01	AGILE MARITIME RESOURCES INC. v. APOLINARIO N. SIADOR BRION, J.
Whether it is the employer or the seafarer, the quantum of proof necessary to discharge their respective burdens is substantial evidence, i.e., such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.[26]
	GR No. 198097 2014-07-30	STATUS MARITIME CORPORATION v. SPS. MARGARITO B. DELALAMON AND PRISCILA A. DELALAMON REYES, J.
The Court is not a trier of facts hence, only questions of law, may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not the Court's function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again in view of the corollary legal precept that findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on this Court. Nevertheless, the Court will proceed to probe and resolve factual issues when any of these exceptional circumstances are present, viz: when there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence to support the findings of the tribunal or the court below, or when too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts submitted by the parties or,[26] where the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the LA and the NLRC.[27]
	GR No. 188190 2014-04-21	BARKO INTERNATIONAL v. EBERLY S. ALCAYNO REYES, J.
Settled is the rule that the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue. In labor cases, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. In disability claims, as in the case at bar, the employee bears the onus to prove by substantial evidence his own positive assertions.[35]