This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-11-26 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The Court in the case of Calanasan v. Dolorito[40] could not have been more incisive in explaining the reason for this rule, viz.:The petitioner never raised this issue before the lower courts. It can't be emphasized enough that the Court will not revisit the evidence presented below as well as any evidence introduced for the first time on appeal. Aside from being a factual issue that is not proper for the present action, the Court dismisses this new argument for being procedurally infirm and violative of due process. As we have held in the past: "points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court will not be and ought not to be considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Basic consideration of due process impels this rule."[41] | |||||
|
2014-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| These factual contests are not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court is not a trier of facts.[15] The Court will not revisit, re-examine, and re-evaluate the evidence and the factual conclusions arrived at by the lower courts.[16] In the absence of compelling reasons, the Court will not disturb the rule that factual findings of the lower tribunals are final and binding on this Court.[17] | |||||