Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY v. ANTONIO CHUA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191404 2010-07-05	EUMELIA R. MITRA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Mitra alleges that there was no proper service on her of the notice of dishonor and, so, an essential element of the offense is missing. This contention raises a factual issue that is not proper for review. It is not the function of the Court to re-examine the finding of facts of the Court of Appeals. Our review is limited to errors of law and cannot touch errors of facts unless the petitioner shows that the trial court overlooked facts or circumstances that warrant a different disposition of the case[11] or that the findings of fact have no basis on record. Hence, with respect to the issue of the propriety of service on Mitra of the notice of dishonor, the Court gives full faith and credit to the consistent findings of the MTCC, the RTC and the CA.
	GR No. 180870 2010-01-22	JULIUS CACAO Y PRIETO v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
As a general rule, factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the CA are entitled to great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, if there is any indication that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances which would substantially affect the disposition of the case,[21] we will not hesitate to review the same. In this case, we find it imperative to review the factual findings of the trial court because of certain inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses on material points.
	GR No. 171374 2008-04-08	TEOFILA ILAGAN-MENDOZA and ROSARIO ILAGAN URCIA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case, are generally binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court, for it is not the function of this Court to reexamine the lower courts' findings of fact. Suffice it to say that the factual findings and conclusions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect and will not generally be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances that would warrant a different disposition of the case.[26]
	GR No. 165608 2007-12-13	PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER CORPORATION v. KAMALIG RESOURCES TINGA, J,
As to the Court of Appeals' award of attorney's fees to Kamalig, it appears that the award was granted under the auspices of Art. 2208, par. (4) of the Civil Code which provides that attorney's fees may be recovered "in case of a clearly unfounded civil action or proceeding against the plaintiff" or in this case, against then defendant Kamalig since the appellate court reasoned that Kamalig was compelled to hire the services of a lawyer to defend itself. In this case, overwithdrawals of fertilizer products in Iloilo had been proven, showing that indeed there was cause for filing of a complaint against Kamalig. Kamalig is thus not entitled to attorney's fees. The general rule is that attorney's fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.[39] In short, the grant of attorney's fees as part of damages is the exception rather than the rule, and counsel's fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit.[40]
	GR No. 165767 2005-11-29	SPS. WILLIAM G. FRIEND AND MARIA RENEE FRIEND AND JOHN DOE v. UNION BANK OF PHILIPPINES YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the second issue raised by petitioners, suffice it to say that the factual findings and conclusion of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight and respect and will not generally be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts or circumstances that would warrant a different disposition of the case.[17]
	GR No. 142029 2001-02-28	ERLINDA FRANCISCO v. RICARDO FERRER PARDO, J.
"It must again stressed that moral damages are emphatically not intended to enrich a plaintiff at the expense of the defendant." [22] "When awarded, moral damages must not be palpably and scandalously excessive as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice or corruption on the part of the trial court judge"23 or appellate court justices. [24]