This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Generally, the findings of fact of the lower courts are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed except for cogent reasons.14 Indeed, they should not be changed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court overlooked, disregarded, or misinterpreted some facts of weight and significance, which if considered would have altered the result of the case.[12] In the present case, we find that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals interpreted some significant facts resulting in an erroneous resolution of the issue involved. | |||||
|
2005-09-20 |
|||||
| The Court is not proscribed, however, from delving into and resolving factual issues, if the findings and conclusions of the trial court are inconsistent with those of the appellate court; or where the findings of the trial court and the CA are contrary to the evidence on record or were arrived at arbitrarily.[40] | |||||