You're currently signed in as:
User

FLORENTINA D. DAVID v. MANILA BULLETIN PUBLISHING COMPANY

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

2006-09-27
CARPIO, J.
Meanwhile, in an Order[14] dated 12 May 2000, the trial court suspended further proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279 pending resolution of the petition. However, in a Resolution [15] dated 27 April 2004, the trial court, upon private respondent's motion, dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279 for unreasonable delay in the prosecution of the cases which is violative of the right of the accused to speedy trial.[16] Upon the prosecution's motion for reconsideration, the trial court issued an Order[17]
2006-08-31
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Moreover, the Court finds no plausible reason to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered by the RTC and the CA, especially since these findings are not tainted with any capriciousness or palpable error. The rule is that where the factual findings of both courts are in accord, the same are binding on this Court.[13]
2002-03-06
QUISUMBING, J.
On the second issue, petitioner claims that private respondents did not show that he was connected with CVSGIC, nor did they prove his specific acts of infringement to make him liable for damages.  Again, this is a factual matter and factual findings of the trial court, concurred in by the Court of Appeals, are final and binding on this Court.[6] Both the courts below found that petitioner had a copyright over Europress' arcuate design and that he consented to the use of said design by CVSGIC.  We are bound by this finding, especially in the absence of a showing that it was tainted with arbitrariness or palpable error.[7] It must be stressed that it was immaterial whether or not petitioner was connected with CVSGIC.  What is relevant is that petitioner had a copyright over the design and that he allowed the use of the same by CVSGIC.