Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENJAMIN BUYCO v. PEOPLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 191018 2016-01-25	CARLOS BORROMEO v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL BRION, J.
The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has also carved out recognized exceptions[5] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;[6] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;[7] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[8] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[9] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[10] (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;[11] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court's;[12] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[13] (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;[14] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[15] and (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.[16]
	GR No. 182395 2015-10-05	MARITO T. BERNALES v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES BRION, J.
At the outset, we also note that the petitioner only raised questions of fact, which are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. Under Section 1 of Rule 45, such petition shall only raise questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not our function to analyze and weigh the evidence that the lower courts have passed upon. Ordinarily, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has carved out recognized exceptions[4] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;[5] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[6] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[7] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[8] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[9] (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;[10] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;[11] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[12] (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;[13] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[14] and (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.[15]
	GR NO. 130348 2007-09-03	MIGUEL SORIANO v. ANTERO SORIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Of course, this Court may be minded to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, but only in the presence of any of the following circumstances: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;[46] (2) the interference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[47] (3) there is grave abuse of discretion;[48] (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[49] (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;[50] (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;[51] (7) the findings of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;[52] (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;[53] (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;[54] (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case;[55] and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[56]
	GR No. 156284 2007-02-06	AUGUSTO GOMEZ v. MARIA RITA GOMEZ-SAMSON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
2) When there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts.[10]
	GR NO. 159938 2006-03-31	SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT v. DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES GARCIA, J.
When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[24] When there is grave abuse of discretion; [25] When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; [26] When the findings of fact are conflicting; [27] and 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. [28]