Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEOPOLDO ALICBUSAN v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 167710 2009-06-05	PEOPLE v. JOVEN DE GRANO PERALTA, J.
Factual matters cannot be inquired into by this Court in a certiorari proceeding. We can no longer be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them again to ascertain if the trial court was correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other.[65] The sole office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and does not include a review of the RTC's evaluation of the evidence and the factual findings based thereon.[66]
	GR No. 126243 2002-01-18	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. MACRO TEXTILE MILLS CORPORATION PARDO, J.
The Court can no longer go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh these to ascertain if the trial court and the appellate court were correct in according superior credit to this or that piece of evidence of one party or the other.[32]
	GR No. 127405 2000-10-04	MARJORIE TOCAO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The issue of whether or not a partnership exists is a factual matter which are within the exclusive domain of both the trial and appellate courts. This Court cannot set aside factual findings of such courts absent any showing that there is no evidence to support the conclusion drawn by the court a quo.[14] In this case, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals are one in ruling that petitioners and private respondent established a business partnership. This Court finds no reason to rule otherwise.