Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 171511 2009-03-04	RONNIE CALUAG v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
The well-entrenched rule is that only errors of law and not of fact are reviewable by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 under which this petition is filed. It is not the Court's function under Rule 45 to review, examine and evaluate or weigh once again the probative value of the evidence presented.[17]
	GR No. 154503 2008-02-29	UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB and VIVIAN M. APDUHAN v. NLRC and AMALIA P. KAWADA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is a well-settled rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact.[40] The Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not the Court's function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again.[41]