This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Dejan posits that the petition is improper because it raises only questions of facts. We do not see this as a legal problem. As we stressed earlier, the CA grossly misapprehended the facts and the evidence on record. The case falls within the exceptions to the rule on the conclusiveness of the CA findings, thereby opening the CA rulings to the Court's discretionary review authority.[35] | |||||
|
2009-06-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We initially observe that the petition raises factual issues that call for a re-weighing of the evidence on record. As a rule, this is not allowed under Rule 45, as only questions of law are covered in a petition for review on certiorari. In this case, the Court is not a trier of facts, and thus, it is not tasked to make its own assessment and give its independent evaluation of the probative value of the evidence adduced by the parties in the proceedings below. However, the above rule admits of exceptions;[13] one of them is when there is a conflict in the factual findings of the lower courts.[14] When this happens, no reason exists for the lower courts' factual findings to be conclusive and the Court carries the burden of reviewing the evidence on hand.[15] | |||||