This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-06-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It is an established rule that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of facts of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court.[8] We have likewise held that factual findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and bind the Supreme Court.[9] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| While it is a settled rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case,[14] there are, however, exceptions to this rule, like when the findings of facts of the RTC and the Court of Appeals are conflicting, or when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based.[15] | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The reason for the rule is that the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. Our jurisdiction is in principle limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the CA. A fortiori, as in this case, where the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed in toto by the CA, there is great reason for not disturbing such findings and for regarding them as not reviewable by this Court.[18] There are also settled exceptions to this rule: (1) when the factual findings of the CA and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (3) when the inference made by the CA from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (4) when there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the appellate court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (7) when the CA failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[19] In the case at bar, none of these exceptions is present which would warrant a review of the factual findings of the courts below. | |||||