This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-05-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The question of whether a tenancy relationship exists is basically a question of fact which, as a general rule, is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.[66] The question of whether there was an implied tenancy and sharing are basically questions of fact and the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Boards a quo are, generally, entitled to respect and nondisturbance, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[67] Such findings of fact may be reviewed by the Court when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures,[68] or if the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.[69] | |||||
|
2008-01-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| On July 17, 2006, the RTC, Branch 100, Quezon City rendered a Decision[2] in Criminal Case Nos. Q-97-69655-56 convicting respondent of violation of Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.[3] The criminal cases are now on appeal before the Court of Appeals (CA).[4] | |||||
|
2007-08-08 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Finally, considering that the computations, as well as the propriety of the awards, are unquestionably factual issues that have been discussed and ruled upon by NLRC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, we cannot depart from such findings. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Such findings deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.[26] | |||||