Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 152122 2003-07-30	CHINA AIRLINES v. DANIEL CHIOK PANGANIBAN, J.
Both the trial and the appellate courts found that respondent had satisfactorily proven the existence of the factual basis for the damages adjudged against petitioner and PAL. As a rule, the findings of fact of the CA affirming those of the RTC will not be disturbed by this Court.[28] Indeed, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. As a rule also, only questions of law -- as in the present recourse -- may be raised in petitions for review under Rule 45.