This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-06-17 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The petitioner’s issues are largely factual in nature and are therefore not the proper subjects of a Rule 45 petition.[35] Specifically, the determination of the existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter that we do not review in a Rule 45 petition.[36] But due to the conflicts in the factual findings of the RTC and the CA, we see the need to re-examine the facts and the parties’ evidence to fully resolve their present dispute.[37] | |||||
|
2013-03-20 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In contrast, Northwestern's breach, if any, was characterized by the appellate court as slight or casual.[21] By way of negative definition, a breach is considered casual if it does not fundamentally defeat the object of the parties in entering into an agreement. Furthermore, for there to be a breach to begin with, there must be a "failure, without legal excuse, to perform any promise which forms the whole or part of the contract."[22] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually reviewed in a petition for review under Rule 45.[20] The Court, in petitions for review, limits its inquiry only to questions of law. After all, it is not a trier of facts, and findings of fact made by the trial court, especially when reiterated by the CA, must be given great respect if not considered as final.[21] In dealing with this petition, we will not veer away from this doctrine and will thus sustain the factual findings of the CA, which we find to be adequately supported by the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2009-12-07 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| As correctly ruled by the CA, the statement "to inform in advance in case the same checks cannot be deposited for failure to replace the defective feeds" is not expressed in definite, certain and unequivocal language that Fuji admitted to delivering defective feeds. The CA also ruled that to be an admission of any breach of warranty, the evidence must be clear and convincing. The CA pointed out that the inspection and discovery of the alleged defective feeds were made as early as March 1989 while the feeds subject of this case were delivered to Shrimp Specialists only from 3 June to 24 July 1989. Even assuming that Fuji admitted that the feeds delivered were defective, the question of whether Fuji had replaced the feeds is a factual matter not usually reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45.[36] | |||||
|
2009-10-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It has already been held that the determination of the existence of a breach of contract is a factual matter not usually reviewable in a petition filed under Rule 45.[18] We will not review, much less reverse, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals especially where, as in this case, such findings coincide with those of the trial court, since we are not a trier of facts.[19] The established rule is that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the RTC are conclusive and binding on us. We are not wont to review them, save under exceptional circumstances as: (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 Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[20] | |||||