Lawyerly

GR Nos. 180880-81

2009-09-25

KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD v. PIONEER INSURANCE

NACHURA, J.

Likewise, Clause 20 is a stipulation that may be considered contrary to public policy. To allow KCSI to limit its liability to only P50,000,000.00, notwithstanding the fact that there was a constructive total loss in the amount of P360,000,000.00, would sanction the exercise of a degree of diligence short of what is ordinarily required. It would not be difficult for a negligent party to escape liability by the simple expedient of paying an amount very much lower than the actual damage or loss sustained by the other.[53]

GR No. 156335

2007-11-28

SPS. RAUL v. CITIBANK

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

In the instant case, the CA completely reversed the findings of facts of the trial court on the ground that the RTC failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances. Thus, applying the standing jurisprudence on the matter,[46] the Court proceeded to examine the evidence on record.

GR NO. 151458

2006-08-31

JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN GULAM v. SPS. CATALINO AND RICARDA SANTOS

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Finally, petitioner laments the disregard made on the NBI finding that the signature of respondent Santos appearing on the March 9, 1994 receipt was genuine. On this score, it should be stressed that although they may have probative value, reception in evidence of expert testimonies is within the discretion of the court.[26] The RTC and the CA did not commit any error in disregarding the NBI's finding since it was convincingly shown that the specimen signature of respondent Santos from which the signature on the receipt was compared, was not actually supplied by Santos but by petitioner. Thus, as correctly stated by the CA:A fortiori, We agree with the trial court that the NBI expert is considered to have no adequate knowledge of the genuine signatures of the parties whose signatures are claimed to be forged, for this witness was not in possession of the genuine signatures of the appellees. Moreover, opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily bind

GR NO. 141856

2005-02-11

PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. SINFOROSO F. MACALINAO

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case, are binding on the Supreme Court. Indeed, the review of such findings is not a function that this Court normally undertakes.[5] It should be stressed that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review before this Court. However, this Rule is not absolute; it admits of exceptions, such as (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which if properly considered will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[6]

GR NO. 148542

2005-01-17

MARILYN ODCHIMAR GERLACH v. REUTERS LIMITED

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

At the outset, it bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law,[21] questions of fact are not entertained.[22] Thus, only questions of law may be brought by the parties and passed upon by this Court in the exercise of its power to review.[23] Also, judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[24]

GR No. 136911

2002-07-03

CASIMIRO v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

In petitions such as the one at bar, we may not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.[16] We are not a trier of facts; the resolution of factual issues being the function of lower courts.[17] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[18] unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule.[19]

GR No. 138251

2002-01-29

MAGDALENA BLANCIA v. LOLITA TAN VDA. DE CALAUOR

PARDO, J.

The issue raised is factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.[9] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[10] unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule.[11]

GR No. 146096

2001-12-14

SPS. JOHN AND ANITA UY TANSIPEK v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS

PARDO, J.

We find the petition without merit. The issues raised are factual.[7] In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[8] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewed by this Court,[9] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[10]

GR No. 126524

2001-11-29

BPI INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. D. G. CARREON COMMERCIAL CORPORATION

PARDO, J.

"There are instances when the findings of fact of the trial court and/or Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court, such as (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record."[27]

GR No. 121492

2001-10-26

BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K. H. UY

PARDO, J.

The first issue is factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[13] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Court,[14] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[15]

GR No. 136291

2001-10-17

LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC

PARDO, J.

We deny the petition. The issues raised are factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[15] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Court,[16] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[17]

GR No. 122950

2000-11-20

ESTATE OF LATE MENA BOLANOS v. CA

PARDO, J.

The issue raised is factual. We may not review the appellate court's findings of fact in an appeal via certiorari.[5] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[6] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule,[7] such as diverse factual findings of the lower courts[8] or the findings are entirely grounded on speculations.[9] Petitioners failed to prove that the case falls within the exceptions.[10]

	GR Nos. 180880-81 2009-09-25	KEPPEL CEBU SHIPYARD v. PIONEER INSURANCE NACHURA, J.
Likewise, Clause 20 is a stipulation that may be considered contrary to public policy. To allow KCSI to limit its liability to only P50,000,000.00, notwithstanding the fact that there was a constructive total loss in the amount of P360,000,000.00, would sanction the exercise of a degree of diligence short of what is ordinarily required. It would not be difficult for a negligent party to escape liability by the simple expedient of paying an amount very much lower than the actual damage or loss sustained by the other.[53]
	GR No. 156335 2007-11-28	SPS. RAUL v. CITIBANK AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the instant case, the CA completely reversed the findings of facts of the trial court on the ground that the RTC failed to appreciate certain facts and circumstances. Thus, applying the standing jurisprudence on the matter,[46] the Court proceeded to examine the evidence on record.
	GR NO. 151458 2006-08-31	JALLALUDIN ABDULRAHMAN GULAM v. SPS. CATALINO AND RICARDA SANTOS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Finally, petitioner laments the disregard made on the NBI finding that the signature of respondent Santos appearing on the March 9, 1994 receipt was genuine. On this score, it should be stressed that although they may have probative value, reception in evidence of expert testimonies is within the discretion of the court.[26] The RTC and the CA did not commit any error in disregarding the NBI's finding since it was convincingly shown that the specimen signature of respondent Santos from which the signature on the receipt was compared, was not actually supplied by Santos but by petitioner. Thus, as correctly stated by the CA:A fortiori, We agree with the trial court that the NBI expert is considered to have no adequate knowledge of the genuine signatures of the parties whose signatures are claimed to be forged, for this witness was not in possession of the genuine signatures of the appellees. Moreover, opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily bind
	GR NO. 141856 2005-02-11	PHILIPPINE RABBIT BUS LINES v. SINFOROSO F. MACALINAO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case, are binding on the Supreme Court. Indeed, the review of such findings is not a function that this Court normally undertakes.[5] It should be stressed that under the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review before this Court. However, this Rule is not absolute; it admits of exceptions, such as (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when a lower court's inference from its factual findings is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to notice certain relevant facts which if properly considered will justify a different conclusion; (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.[6]
	GR NO. 148542 2005-01-17	MARILYN ODCHIMAR GERLACH v. REUTERS LIMITED SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
At the outset, it bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law,[21] questions of fact are not entertained.[22] Thus, only questions of law may be brought by the parties and passed upon by this Court in the exercise of its power to review.[23] Also, judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[24]
	GR No. 136911 2002-07-03	CASIMIRO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In petitions such as the one at bar, we may not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.[16] We are not a trier of facts; the resolution of factual issues being the function of lower courts.[17] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[18] unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule.[19]
	GR No. 138251 2002-01-29	MAGDALENA BLANCIA v. LOLITA TAN VDA. DE CALAUOR PARDO, J.
The issue raised is factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.[9] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[10] unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule.[11]
	GR No. 146096 2001-12-14	SPS. JOHN AND ANITA UY TANSIPEK v. PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS PARDO, J.
We find the petition without merit. The issues raised are factual.[7] In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[8] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewed by this Court,[9] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[10]
	GR No. 126524 2001-11-29	BPI INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. D. G. CARREON COMMERCIAL CORPORATION PARDO, J.
"There are instances when the findings of fact of the trial court and/or Court of Appeals may be reviewed by the Supreme Court, such as (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record."[27]
	GR No. 121492 2001-10-26	BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K. H. UY PARDO, J.
The first issue is factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[13] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Court,[14] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[15]
	GR No. 136291 2001-10-17	LETICIA M. MAGSINO v. REPUBLIC PARDO, J.
We deny the petition. The issues raised are factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[15] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Court,[16] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[17]
	GR No. 122950 2000-11-20	ESTATE OF LATE MENA BOLANOS v. CA PARDO, J.
The issue raised is factual. We may not review the appellate court's findings of fact in an appeal via certiorari.[5] The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[6] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule,[7] such as diverse factual findings of the lower courts[8] or the findings are entirely grounded on speculations.[9] Petitioners failed to prove that the case falls within the exceptions.[10]

CEBU SHIPYARD v. WILLIAM LINES