Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FERNANDO CO v. LINA B. VARGAS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188638 2015-12-09	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. JOSELITO A. CRISTINO PEREZ, J.
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[57]
	GR No. 182153 2014-04-07	TUNG HO STEEL ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. TING GUAN TRADING CORPORATION BRION, J.
to receive the summons Nonetheless, we see no reason to disturb the lower courts' finding that Tejero was not a corporate secretary and, therefore, was not the proper person to receive the summons under Section 11, Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. This Court is not a trier of facts; we cannot re-examine, review or re-evaluate the evidence and the factual review made by the lower courts. In the absence of compelling reasons, we will not deviate from the rule that factual findings of the lower courts are final and binding on this Court.[22]
	GR No. 172909 2014-03-05	SPS. SILVESTRE O. PLAZA AND ELENA Y. PLAZA v. GUILLERMO LUSTIVA BRION, J.
These factual contests are not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The Court is not a trier of facts.[15] The Court will not revisit, re-examine, and re-evaluate the evidence and the factual conclusions arrived at by the lower courts.[16] In the absence of compelling reasons, the Court will not disturb the rule that factual findings of the lower tribunals are final and binding on this Court.[17]
	GR No. 171937 2013-11-25	CERILA J. CALANASAN v. SPS. VIRGILIO DOLORITO AND EVELYN C. DOLORITO BRION, J.
As correctly raised by the respondents, these allegations are factual issues which are not proper for the present action. The Court is not a trier of facts.[7] The Court cannot re-examine, review or re-evaluate the evidence and the factual review made by the lower courts.[8] In the absence of compelling reasons, the Court will not deviate from the rule that factual findings of the lower tribunals are final and binding on this Court.
	GR No. 192394 2013-07-03	ROY D. PASOS v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and this Court will not review them on appeal.[34] The rule, however, is subject to the following exceptions: The jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought before it from the appellate court is limited to reviewing errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not the Court's function to analyze and weigh the evidence all over again. Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court enumerated the exceptions to the rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the Court: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is 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 in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings 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 petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[35]
	GR No. 177042 2012-12-10	SPS. CRISANTO ALCAZAR AND SUSANA VILLAMAYOR v. EVELYN ARANTE PERALTA, J.
The rule is that in order that moral damages may be awarded, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like.[44] In the instant case, respondent alleged that he suffered from wounded feelings, sleepless nights and mental anxiety and the CA found that respondent was able to substantiate these claims and allegations. Suffice it to reiterate that the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and this Court will not review them on appeal[45] subject to exceptions,[46] which do not obtain in this case.