Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ONG ENG KIAM v. LUCITA G. ONG

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 159561-62 2012-10-03	R.V. SANTOS COMPANY v. BELLE CORPORATION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Third, bias on the part of a witness cannot be presumed. It is a basic rule that good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be proved.[32] In a previous case, we have held that the witness' employment relationship with, or financial dependence on, the party presenting his testimony would not be sufficient reason to discredit said witness and label his testimony as biased and unworthy of credence.[33] Analogously, that Belle and R.A. Mojica had a long standing business relationship does not necessarily mean that the latter's report was tainted with irregularity, especially in the absence of evidence that the audit report was indeed inaccurate or erroneous. It must be emphasized as well that RVSCI had ample opportunity to cross-examine Engr. Mojica with respect to the particulars of his company's audit report.
	GR No. 182650 2012-02-27	TOMAS K. CHUA v. WESTMONT BANK VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As a general rule, only errors of law are reviewable by the Supreme Court on petitions for review on certiorari.[24] The rule finds more stringent application where the CA upholds the findings of fact of the trial court. In such instance, as in this case, this Court is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the lower courts.[25] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.[26]
	GR No. 170790 2009-10-23	ANGELITO COLMENARES v. HAND TRACTOR PARTS QUISUMBING, J.
It is settled that questions of fact cannot be the subject of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The rule finds more stringent application where the Court of Appeals upholds the findings of fact of the trial court. In such instance, as in this case, this Court is generally bound to adopt the facts as determined by the lower courts.[20] This Court has held also that when supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court.[21] Needless to stress, under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petition shall raise only questions of law.[22] The reason is that this Court is not a trier of facts, and is not to review and calibrate the evidence on record.[23]
	GR No. 150746 2008-10-15	SIMEON NICOLAS CHAN v. YOLANDA CHAN NACHURA, J.
It is hornbook doctrine that findings of fact of trial courts are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.[29] Trial court judges enjoy the unique opportunity of observing the deportment of witnesses on the stand, a vantage point denied appellate tribunals.[30]
	GR No. 150746 2008-10-15	SIMEON NICOLAS CHAN v. YOLANDA CHAN NACHURA, J.
It is hornbook doctrine that findings of fact of trial courts are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid reasons because the trial court is in a better position to examine the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.[29] Trial court judges enjoy the unique opportunity of observing the deportment of witnesses on the stand, a vantage point denied appellate tribunals.[30]