This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-03-01 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As a rule, only questions of law may be appealed to the Court by petition for review. The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to errors of law.[9] Moreover, factual findings of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding on this Court.[10] In this case, the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals were based on substantial evidence which were not refuted with contrary proof by petitioner. We thus find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2003-04-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In any event, the issues about the alleged extension of the Contract, the double sale, the interference with the development of the subdivision, are matters requiring the introduction and evaluation of evidence. They are questions of fact, which arise when doubt or difference exists about the truth or falsehood of alleged facts.[21] | |||||
|
2001-06-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, this Court's consistent policy has been to maintain non-interference in the determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion. This observed policy is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the Court will be seriously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped with cases if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[23] | |||||