Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JENETTE MARIE B. CRISOLOGO v. GLOBE TELECOM INC.

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 177931 2008-12-08	PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. DEANG MARKETING CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
If petitioner is confident that the complaint lacks merit, then it need not worry because once the defendant is declared in default, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to the relief prayed for. Favorable relief can be granted only after it has been ascertained that it is warranted by the evidence offered and the facts proven by the presenting party.[33] In any event, petitioner, even if declared in default, is not deprived of his right to appeal the decision of the trial court.[34]
	GR Nos. 151983-84 2008-07-31	JOSE MAX S. ORTIZ v. SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
This Court has consistently ruled that a question of law exists when there is a doubt or controversy as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the alleged truth or falsehood of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[35] The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[36]
	GR NO. 164547 2007-03-28	CGP TRANSPORTATION v. PCI LEASING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised.[21] In petitions such as the one filed in G.R. No. 150483, questions of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal under Rule 45 as this mode of appeal is generally confined to questions of law.[22] Well entrenched is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts.[23] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are in fact binding on us subject to certain exceptions.[24] Cases where an appeal involved questions of fact, of law, or both fall within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.[25] This is attested to by Section 15, Rule 44 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The section reads:SEC. 15. Questions that may be raised on appeal. - x x x he may include in his assignment of errors any question of law or fact that has been raised in the court below and which is within the issues framed by the parties.
	GR NO. 160741 2007-03-22	HERMINIA CANDO v. SPS. AURORA OLAZO AND CLAUDIO OLAZO TINGA, J.
The test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact.[13]
	GR NO. 155488 2006-12-06	ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG v. SPS. RAYMOND AND MARIA HEDY VELAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[24] For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[25] The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[26] Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise it is a question of fact.[27]
	GR NO. 155392 2006-12-06	ERLINDA GUANZON v. ANDREW P. ARRADAZA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him (Sec. 2, Rule 41). Moreover, a Petition for Certiorari to declare the nullity of a judgment by default is also available if the trial court improperly declared a party in default, or even if the trial court properly declared a party in default, if grave abuse of discretion attended such declaration.[20]
	GR NO. 160895 2006-10-30	JOSE R. MARTINEZ v. REPUBLIC TINGA, J.
d) He may also appeal from the judgment rendered against him as contrary to the evidence or to the law, even if no petition to set aside the order of default has been presented by him. (Sec. 2, Rule 41)[31] The fourth remedy, that of appeal, is anchored on Section 2, Rule 41 of the 1964 Rules. Yet even after that provision's deletion under the 1997 Rules, the Court did not hesitate to expressly rely again on the Lina doctrine, including the pronouncement that a defaulted defendant may appeal from the judgment rendered against him. This can be seen in the cases of Indiana Aerospace University v. Commission on Higher Education,[32] Tan v. Dumarpa,[33] and Crisologo v. Globe Telecom, Inc.[34]