This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-11-26 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[20] The Court, however, recognizes several exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, 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 of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[21] Several exceptions obtain in this case; hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted. | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We note that the present Petition raises questions of fact. Whether a person is negligent or not is a question of fact which we cannot ordinarily pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari, as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law.[19] | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Negligence is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution, and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury.[11] On the other hand, contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to conform for his own protection.[12] There is contributory negligence when the party's act showed lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger.[13] It is an act or omission amounting to want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured which, concurring with the defendant's negligence, is the proximate cause of the injury.[14] | |||||
|
2007-06-22 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| To be relieved of liability, petitioner Mercury Drug should show that it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family, both in the selection of the employee and in the supervision of the performance of his duties. Thus, in the selection of its prospective employees, the employer is required to examine them as to their qualifications, experience, and service records.[12] With respect to the supervision of its employees, the employer should formulate standard operating procedures, monitor their implementation, and impose disciplinary measures for their breach. To establish compliance with these requirements, employers must submit concrete proof, including documentary evidence.[13] | |||||
|
2007-03-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we note that the issues raised are factual in nature. Whether a person is negligent or not is a question of fact which we cannot pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari which is limited to reviewing errors of law.[19] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The issue of who, between the parties, was negligent was thoroughly discussed by both the RTC and the CA. In petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put into issue, and questions of fact as a general rule, cannot be entertained. The finding of negligence by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, is a question of fact which this Court cannot pass upon as it would entail going into factual matters on which the finding of negligence was based.[51] The established rule is that factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are conclusive and binding on this Court.[52] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As to whether or not Mercelita was guilty of contributory negligence, we agree with petitioner. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard to which he is required to conform for his own protection.[59] To hold a person as having contributed to his injuries, it must be shown that he performed an act that brought about his injuries in disregard of warning or signs of an impending danger to health and body.[60] To prove contributory negligence, it is still necessary to establish a causal link, although not proximate, between the negligence of the party and the succeeding injury. In a legal sense, negligence is contributory only when it contributes proximately to the injury, and not simply a condition for its occurrence.[61] | |||||