This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-07-13 |
DAVIDE JR., J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental and settled rule that the findings of fact of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding or conclusive upon this Court unless they are not supported by the evidence or unless strong and cogent reasons dictate otherwise.[43] The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are normally not reviewable by us under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court except when they are at variance with those of the trial court. [44] The trial court and the Court of Appeals were in unison that the respondent contractor cannot be considered to have defaulted in its obligations because the cause of the delay was not primarily attributable to it. | |||||
|
2002-08-01 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| his claim that he was denied due process. What the fundamental law prohibits is total absence of opportunity to be heard. When a party has been afforded opportunity to present his side, he cannot feign denial of due process.[12] Petitioner also assails the lower court for issuing the writ of possession on the basis of an ex-parte presentation of evidence by respondent. Principally, petitioner argues that he was not notified of the date of the hearing when respondent was supposed to present its | |||||