Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

J.R. BLANCO v. WILLIAM H. QUASHA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 184622 2013-07-03	PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION v. VICTOR AFRICA BERSAMIN, J.
The Court is not a trier of facts, and thus should not reexamine the evidence in order to determine whether the facts were as POTC and PHC (Nieto Group) now insist they were. The Court must respect the findings of the CA sustaining the factual findings of the RTC in Civil Case No. 04-1049. As a rule, the findings of fact by the CA are not reviewed on appeal, but are binding and conclusive.[154] The reason for this has been well stated in J.R. Blanco v. Quasha: [155]
	GR No. 180440 2012-12-05	DR. GENEVIEVE L. HUANG v. PHILIPPINE HOTELIERS PEREZ, J.
Primarily, only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[61] This Court is not a trier of facts and it is beyond its function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[62] Besides, this Court adheres to the long standing doctrine that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the parties and this Court.[63] Nonetheless, this Court has, at times, allowed exceptions thereto, to wit: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;
	GR No. 169548 2010-03-15	TITAN CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MANUEL A. DAVID DEL CASTILLO, J.
Furthermore, settled is the rule that only errors of law and not of fact are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This applies with even greater force here, since the factual findings by the CA are in full agreement with those of the trial court.[35]
	GR NO. 168220 2005-08-31	SPS. RUDY PARAGAS AND CORAZON B. PARAGAS v. BALACANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
To start, we held in Blanco v. Quasha[15] that this Court is not a trier of facts. As such, it is not its function to examine and determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision. Factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which are supported by substantial evidence, are binding, final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court,[16] and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court. Moreover, well-entrenched is the prevailing jurisprudence that only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
	GR NO. 142913 2005-08-09	ESTATE OF SALVADOR SERRA SERRA v. HEIRS OF PRIMITIVO HERNAEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is axiomatic that factual findings of trial courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive and will not be disturbed on appeal. This Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to examine and determine the weight of the evidence supporting the assailed decision. Moreover, well entrenched is the prevailing jurisprudence that only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, which applies with greater force to the petition under consideration because the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are in full agreement with what the trial court found.[11]
	GR No. 127058 2000-08-31	CRISTINA C. QUINSAY v. CA BUENA, J.
consistently held that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[6] No definitive finding can be made on such matters there being no sufficient evidence on record before the courts to rule on the matter. In order to support the finding of fraud which is a factual issue, it is necessary that the same be supported by evidence properly admitted in accordance with the rules and determined in the first level of judicial proceedings. Besides, if this Court would resolve what petitioner would put as an issue on concealed properties, it would be pre-judging the motion pending before the trial court and render the latter proceeding moot and academic. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
	GR No. 122648 2000-08-17	W-RED CONSTRUCTION v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Court of Appeals which are supported by substantial evidence are binding, final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. So also, well-established is the rule that "factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and carry even more weight when the said court affirms the factual findings of the trial court." Moreover, well entrenched is the prevailing jurisprudence that only errors of law and not of facts are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, which applies with greater force to the Petition under consideration because the factual findings by the Court of Appeals are in full agreement with what the trial court found.[17] In this case, we find no cogent ground to disturb the conclusions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court. We, therefore, affirm the appealed decision.