This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| San Juan, the Chairman of the PEA from July 1998 to February 2001, submits that a petition for review on certiorari, under the mode of appeal provided by Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is required to raise "only questions of law" which shall be distinctly set forth in the petition, the Honorable Court not being a trier of facts. Thus, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 45, the findings of fact below as well as the conclusions on the credibility of witnesses are generally not disturbed, the question before the court being limited to questions of law.[103] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised.[21] In petitions such as the one filed in G.R. No. 150483, questions of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal under Rule 45 as this mode of appeal is generally confined to questions of law.[22] Well entrenched is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts.[23] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are in fact binding on us subject to certain exceptions.[24] Cases where an appeal involved questions of fact, of law, or both fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.[25] This is attested to by Section 15, Rule 44 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The section reads:SEC. 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal. - x x x he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties. | |||||
|
2006-07-21 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| It cannot be denied that R.A. No. 7432 has a laudable goal. Moreover, it cannot be argued that it was the intent of lawmakers for private establishments to be the primary beneficiaries of the law. However, while the purpose of the law to benefit senior citizens is praiseworthy, the concerns of the affected private establishments were also considered by the lawmakers. As in other cases wherein private property is taken by the State for public use, there must be just compensation. In this particular case, it took the form of the tax credit granted to private establishments, purposely chosen by the lawmakers. In the similar case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Central Luzon Drug Corporation,[20] scrutinizing the deliberations of the Bicameral Conference Committee Meeting on Social Justice on February 5, 1992 which finalized R.A. No. 7432, the discussions of the lawmakers clearly showed the intent that the cost of the 20 percent discount may be claimed by the private establishments as a tax credit. An excerpt from the deliberations is as follows: SEN. ANGARA. In the case of private hospitals they got the grant of 15% discount, provided that, the private hospitals can claim the expense as a tax credit | |||||
|
2003-12-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it cannot be over-accentuated that Tomas Alonso, petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, never asserted any claim of ownership over the disputed property during his lifetime. When he was alive, Tomas Alonso did not exert any effort to have the title of the disputed property reconstituted in his name or seek recovery thereof from the respondent which was in possession since 1931.[12] Significantly, Tomas Alonso had caused the reconstitution of his title on Lot 810, which is adjacent to the disputed property, sometime in 1946 and yet petitioners failed to show that Tomas Alonso exerted the same effort to reconstitute his alleged title to the subject property. As successors-in-interest, petitioners merely stepped into the shoes of Tomas Alonso. They cannot claim a right greater than that of their predecessor. Notably, Tomas Alonso and his son Francisco Alonso were not ordinary or unschooled men. They were learned men of the law. They belonged to the landed gentry and, thus, had adequate financial resources at their disposal. Tomas Alonso was even a member of Congress. The length of time that has elapsed, spanning six decades, before the institution of the suit to recover the property, begs for a valid explanation, of which none was convincingly offered. Petitioners' silent acquiescence for several decades and belated invocation of an alleged right speak strongly of the staleness of their claim. Their claims can hardly evoke judicial compassion. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. "If eternal vigilance is the price of safety, one cannot sleep on one's right for more than a tenth of a century and expect it to be preserved in its pristine purity".[13] | |||||