Lawyerly

GR No. 159564

2011-11-16

REPUBLIC v. SPS. LEON GUILALAS AND EULALIA SELLERA GUILALAS

PERALTA, J.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[16] This Court's ruling in Velayo-Fong v. Velayo[17] is instructive: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[18]

GR No. 154366

2010-11-17

CEBU BIONIC BUILDERS SUPPLY v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed thereunder shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[57]

GR No. 180543

2010-07-27

KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION v. LEONCIO M. JANOLO

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Velayo-Fong v. Velayo[63] discusses the meaning of meritorious defense: Moreover, when a party files a motion to lift order of default, she must also show that she has a meritorious defense or that something would be gained by having the order of default set aside. The term meritorious defense implies that the applicant has the burden of proving such a defense in order to have the judgment set aside. The cases usually do not require such a strong showing. The test employed appears to be essentially the same as used in considering summary judgment, that is, whether there is enough evidence to present an issue for submission to the trier of fact, or a showing that on the undisputed facts it is not clear that the judgment is warranted as a matter of law. The defendant must show that she has a meritorious defense otherwise the grant of her motion will prove to be a useless exercise. Thus, her motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence which she intends to present if the motion is granted and which is such as to warrant a reasonable belief that the result of the case would probably be otherwise if a new trial is granted.[64] (emphasis in the original)

GR No. 183926

2010-03-29

GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE v. LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE

NACHURA, J.

A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[23] Our ruling in Velayo-Fong v. Velayo[24] is instructive: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[25]

GR No. 165679

2009-10-05

ENGR. APOLINARIO DUEÑAS v. ALICE GUCE-AFRICA

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Petitioner endeavors to convince us to determine, yet again, the weight, credence, and probative value of the evidence presented. This cannot be done in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court where only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by us. In Fong v. Velayo,[17] we defined a question of law as distinguished from a question of fact, viz: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the questioned posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.

GR No. 170427

2009-01-30

ROBERTO R. DAVID v. JUDGE CARMELITA S. GUTIERREZ-FRUELDA

We affirm the RTC's denial. Indeed, default orders are not viewed with favor.[17] But in this case, petitioner failed to comply with the basic requirements of Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The motion was not under oath. There was no allegation that petitioner's failure to file an Answer or any responsive pleading was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Petitioner merely stated that declarations of default are frowned upon, that he should be given the opportunity to present evidence in the interest of substantial justice, and that he has meritorious defenses. Unfortunately, his claim that he has meritorious defenses is unsubstantiated. He did not even state what evidence he intends to present if his motion is granted.[18]

GR No. 159026

2008-02-11

MRS. ALBERTA YANSON v. SECRETARY

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

We dwell only on questions of law, not purely questions of fact, in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The first issue which petitioner raised, that is, whether she was properly served the notices of hearing issued by DOLE-Bacolod, is purely factual.[37] The determination made by DOLE-Bacolod on this matter binds us, especially as it was not reversed by public respondent and the CA. We therefore cannot supplant its factual finding with our own,[38] moreso that petitioner's bare denial cannot outweigh the probative value of the registry return cards attached to the record which indicate that said notices were received by petitioner.[39]

GR No. 176667

2007-11-22

ERICSSON TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF PASIG

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference is on what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference is on the truth or falsity of the facts alleged.[14] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[15]

GR NO. 143331

2007-10-05

FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. v. JAMES L. BOOC

AZCUNA, J.

The Court, in Murillo v. Consul,[42] Suarez v. Villarama, Jr.[43] and Velayo-Fong v. Velayo,[44] had the occasion to clarify the three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, namely: a) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; b) petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and c) petition for review to this Court. The first mode of appeal is governed by Rule 41, and is taken to the CA on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode, covered by Rule 42, is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode, provided for by Rule 45, is elevated to this Court only on questions of law.

GR No. 163683

2007-06-08

ELENITA S. BINAY v. EMERITA ODEÑA

NACHURA, J

First. It is a well-established doctrine that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. In the case of Erlinda R. Velayo-Fong, vs. Spouses Raymond and Maria Hedy Velayo,[22] this Court defined a question of law as distinguished from a question of fact, to wit:A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.

	GR No. 159564 2011-11-16	REPUBLIC v. SPS. LEON GUILALAS AND EULALIA SELLERA GUILALAS PERALTA, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[16] This Court's ruling in Velayo-Fong v. Velayo[17] is instructive: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[18]
	GR No. 154366 2010-11-17	CEBU BIONIC BUILDERS SUPPLY v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court categorically states that the petition filed thereunder shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[57]
	GR No. 180543 2010-07-27	KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION v. LEONCIO M. JANOLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
Velayo-Fong v. Velayo[63] discusses the meaning of meritorious defense: Moreover, when a party files a motion to lift order of default, she must also show that she has a meritorious defense or that something would be gained by having the order of default set aside. The term meritorious defense implies that the applicant has the burden of proving such a defense in order to have the judgment set aside. The cases usually do not require such a strong showing. The test employed appears to be essentially the same as used in considering summary judgment, that is, whether there is enough evidence to present an issue for submission to the trier of fact, or a showing that on the undisputed facts it is not clear that the judgment is warranted as a matter of law. The defendant must show that she has a meritorious defense otherwise the grant of her motion will prove to be a useless exercise. Thus, her motion must be accompanied by a statement of the evidence which she intends to present if the motion is granted and which is such as to warrant a reasonable belief that the result of the case would probably be otherwise if a new trial is granted.[64] (emphasis in the original)
	GR No. 183926 2010-03-29	GENEROSA ALMEDA LATORRE v. LUIS ESTEBAN LATORRE NACHURA, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[23] Our ruling in Velayo-Fong v. Velayo[24] is instructive: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[25]
	GR No. 165679 2009-10-05	ENGR. APOLINARIO DUEÑAS v. ALICE GUCE-AFRICA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Petitioner endeavors to convince us to determine, yet again, the weight, credence, and probative value of the evidence presented. This cannot be done in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court where only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by us. In Fong v. Velayo,[17] we defined a question of law as distinguished from a question of fact, viz: A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the questioned posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.
	GR No. 170427 2009-01-30	ROBERTO R. DAVID v. JUDGE CARMELITA S. GUTIERREZ-FRUELDA
We affirm the RTC's denial. Indeed, default orders are not viewed with favor.[17] But in this case, petitioner failed to comply with the basic requirements of Section 3(b), Rule 9 of the Rules of Court. The motion was not under oath. There was no allegation that petitioner's failure to file an Answer or any responsive pleading was due to fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. Petitioner merely stated that declarations of default are frowned upon, that he should be given the opportunity to present evidence in the interest of substantial justice, and that he has meritorious defenses. Unfortunately, his claim that he has meritorious defenses is unsubstantiated. He did not even state what evidence he intends to present if his motion is granted.[18]
	GR No. 159026 2008-02-11	MRS. ALBERTA YANSON v. SECRETARY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We dwell only on questions of law, not purely questions of fact, in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The first issue which petitioner raised, that is, whether she was properly served the notices of hearing issued by DOLE-Bacolod, is purely factual.[37] The determination made by DOLE-Bacolod on this matter binds us, especially as it was not reversed by public respondent and the CA. We therefore cannot supplant its factual finding with our own,[38] moreso that petitioner's bare denial cannot outweigh the probative value of the registry return cards attached to the record which indicate that said notices were received by petitioner.[39]
	GR No. 176667 2007-11-22	ERICSSON TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. CITY OF PASIG AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference is on what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference is on the truth or falsity of the facts alleged.[14] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[15]
	GR NO. 143331 2007-10-05	FIVE STAR MARKETING CO. v. JAMES L. BOOC AZCUNA, J.
The Court, in Murillo v. Consul,[42] Suarez v. Villarama, Jr.[43] and Velayo-Fong v. Velayo,[44] had the occasion to clarify the three modes of appeal from decisions of the RTC, namely: a) ordinary appeal or appeal by writ of error, where judgment was rendered in a civil or criminal action by the RTC in the exercise of its original jurisdiction; b) petition for review, where judgment was rendered by the RTC in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; and c) petition for review to this Court. The first mode of appeal is governed by Rule 41, and is taken to the CA on questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law. The second mode, covered by Rule 42, is brought to the CA on questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law. The third mode, provided for by Rule 45, is elevated to this Court only on questions of law.
	GR No. 163683 2007-06-08	ELENITA S. BINAY v. EMERITA ODEÑA NACHURA, J
First. It is a well-established doctrine that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. In the case of Erlinda R. Velayo-Fong, vs. Spouses Raymond and Maria Hedy Velayo,[22] this Court defined a question of law as distinguished from a question of fact, to wit:A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.

ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO