This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2009-05-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Neither do we find factual and legal basis for the award of attorney's fees. We have consistently held that the award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the general rule, and "counsel's fees are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The discretion of the court to award attorney's fees under Article 2208 of the Civil Code demands factual, legal, and equitable justification, without which the award is a conclusion without a premise, its basis being improperly left to speculation and conjecture. In all events, the court must state the reason for the award of attorney's fees."[15] None of the circumstances justifying an award of attorney's fees enumerated under Art. 2008 of the Civil Code are present, or have been proven in this case.[16] | |||||
|
2005-02-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law[17] and factual issues are not within its province[18] unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Succinct is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence submitted by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are generally binding and conclusive on this Court.[34] The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law,[35] not of fact, unless it is shown, inter alia, that: (1) the conclusion is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd and impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; and (6) the Court of Appeals, in making its findings went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admission of both parties.[36] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The principle is well-established that this Court is not a trier of facts. Therefore, in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of The Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised. The resolution of factual issues is the function of trial courts the findings of which on these matters are received with respect and are, as a rule, binding on this Court unless it is shown that they are grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures.[5] In the present case, whether the Deed of Sale dated 20 January 1979 is authentic and genuine, and whether petitioner spouses are bound to deliver the property object of the sale to private respondent are essentially factual issues and, after a prudent study of the contentions of both sides, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court which have been affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2000-01-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court has ruled often enough that its jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts.[4] The reason behind this is that the Supreme Court respects the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of witnesses, considering that it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.[5] Thus it accords the highest respect, even finality, to the evaluation made by the lower court of the testimonies of the witnesses presented before it. | |||||