Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIRST BANCORP v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 166923 2014-11-26	PHILIPPINE MIGRANTS RIGHTS WATCH v. OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION PERALTA, J.
A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual. On the other hand, there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.[8]
	GR No. 182970 2014-07-23	EMILIANO S. SAMSON v. SPS. JOSE PERALTA, J.
A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual. On the other hand, there is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on certain state of facts and which does not call for an existence of the probative value of the evidence presented by the parties-litigants. In a case involving a question of law, the resolution of the issue rests solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Ordinarily, the determination of whether an appeal involves only questions of law or both questions of law and fact is best left to the appellate court. All doubts as to the correctness of the conclusions of the appellate court will be resolved in favor of the CA unless it commits an error or commits a grave abuse of discretion.[15]
	GR No. 191178 2013-03-13	ANCHOR SAVINGS BANK v. HENRY H. FURIGAY MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, it is not enough that a party has, in effect, a cause of action. The rules of procedure require that the complaint must contain a concise statement of the ultimate or essential facts constituting the plaintiff's cause of action. "The test of the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint is whether or not, admitting the facts alleged, the court can render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of plaintiff."[22] The focus is on the sufficiency, not the veracity, of the material allegations. Failure to make a sufficient allegation of a cause of action in the complaint warrants its dismissal.[23]
	GR No. 175910 2009-07-30	ATTY. ROGELIO E. SARSABA v. FE VDA. DE TE PERALTA, J.
Accordingly, an appeal may be taken from the RTC which exercised its original jurisdiction, before the Court of Appeals or directly before this Court, provided that the subject of the same is a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by the Rules to be appealable.[29] The first mode of appeal, to be filed before the Court of Appeals, pertains to a writ of error under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, if questions of fact or questions of fact and law are raised or involved. On the other hand, the second mode is by way of an appeal by certiorari before the Supreme Court under Section 2(c), Rule 41, in relation to Rule 45, where only questions of law are raised or involved.[30]
	GR No. 131903 2008-06-26	RAGASA v. CA CARPIO, J.
In First Bancorp, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[32] this Court also explained the two modes of appeal from a final order of the trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction:(1) by writ of error under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court if questions of fact or questions of fact and law are raised or involved; or
	GR No. 170049 2008-03-14	GENEROSO A. JUABAN and FRANCIS M. ZOSA v. RENE ESPINA and CEBU DISCOVERY BAY PROPERTIES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In the fairly recent case of First Bancorp Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[20] we discussed the implications of the allegation by a party of the lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals based on the ground that the appeal was based solely on questions of law:If the aggrieved party appeals by writ of error under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court to the CA and it turns out, from the brief of appellant, that only questions of law are raised, the appeal shall be dismissed:
	GR NO. 160741 2007-03-22	HERMINIA CANDO v. SPS. AURORA OLAZO AND CLAUDIO OLAZO TINGA, J.
There are two modes of appeal from a final order of the trial court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction'(1) by writ of error under Section 2(a), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court if questions of fact or questions of fact and law are raised or involved; or (2) appeal by certiorari under Section 2(c), Rule 41, in relation to Rule 45, where only questions of law are raised or involved.[10] If the aggrieved party appeals via a writ of error under Rule 41, but it turns out that only questions of law are raised, the appeal shall be dismissed.[11]