Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PASTOR AMIGO v. SERAFIN TEVES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 169227 2010-07-05	PHILIPPINE RURAL RECONSTRUCTION MOVEMENT v. VIRGILIO E. PULGAR BRION, J.
Under the Rules of Court and settled doctrine, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to questions of law. As a rule, the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive, and this Court will not review them on appeal.[14] This rule, however, is not absolute and admits of several exceptions.[15]
	GR No. 183834 2009-11-25	JIMMY R. NAPOLES v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 7 NACHURA, J.
It has been repeatedly held that, as a rule, the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by this Court[18] if they are borne out by the records or are based on substantial evidence.[19] The factual issues raised by Napoles in this petition, specifically the failure of the NBI to recover the marked money from his possession,[20] the presence of fluorescent powder on his hands,[21] and the alleged violation of his constitutional right when he was arrested by the NBI[22] have all been squarely discussed and fairly settled in the appellate court's decision.
	GR NO. 161135 2005-04-08	SWAGMAN HOTELS v. CA DAVIDE, JR., C.J.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court[18] as long as they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence.[19] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts. Among the exceptions is when the finding of fact of the trial court or the Court of Appeals is not supported by the evidence on record or is based on a misapprehension of facts. Such exception obtains in the present case.[20]
	GR No. 140946 2004-09-13	MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. MAXICORP CARPIO, J.
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover questions of law.[6] Questions of fact are not reviewable. 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,[7] subject to exceptions as when the findings of the appellate court conflict with the findings of the trial court.[8]
	GR No. 156380 2004-09-08	DOMINGO A. CAÑERO v. UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES PUNO, J.
We are not impressed. The appellate court found that the reconstitution proceedings were void as the lot was already registered earlier in the name of respondent. Further, it found that notice to adjoining property owners was not given by the trial court. For this reason, it never acquired jurisdiction over the quieting of title case and all the proceedings granting the petition for reconstitution are null and void.[43] As a rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by this Court.[44] As there is no patent error in the appreciation of the facts by the appellate court, we sustain its judgment.
	GR No. 152205 2004-02-05	REGORE BALDEO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Per Lourdes' testimony, the distance from the gun to the forehead of the victim was about 8 inches (Id., p.36). This is corroborated by the physical evidence that there were gunpowder burns on the victim indicating that he was shot at close range. As for the identity of the killer, she said that "I really know him" because he was the head of the barangay captains of Tiaong, Quezon. (TSN, January 14, 1997, p. 48). As a rule, the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court[24] provided they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence.[25]
	GR No. 141968 2001-02-12	INTERNATIONAL CORPORATE BANK v. SPS. FRANCIS S. GUECO KAPUNAN, J.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PETITIONER RETURN THE SUBJECT CAR TO THE RESPONDENTS, WITHOUT MAKING ANY PROVISION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE NEW MANAGER'S/CASHIER'S CHECK BY THE RESPONDENTS IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER IN LIEU OF THE ORIGINAL CASHIER'S CHECK THAT ALREADY BECAME STALE.[6] As to the first issue, we find for the respondents. The issue as to what constitutes the terms of the oral compromise or any subsequent novation is a question of fact that was resolved by the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in favor of respondents. It is well settled that the findings of fact of the lower court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding upon this Court.[7] While there are exceptions to this rule,[8] the present case does not fall under any one of them, the petitioner's claim to the contrary, notwithstanding.