Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SUPERLINES TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 179978 2011-08-31	DCD CONSTRUCTION v. REPUBLIC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Megaworld Properties and Holdings, Inc. v. Cobarde,[10] the Court held that as an exception to the binding effect of the trial court's factual findings which were affirmed by the CA, a review of such factual findings may be made when the judgment of the CA is premised on a misapprehension of facts or a failure to consider certain relevant facts that would lead to a completely different conclusion. In the same vein, we declared in Superlines Transportation Company, Inc. v. Philippine National Construction Company,[11] that while it is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not, as a rule, undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties, a number of exceptions have nevertheless been recognized by the Court, such as when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, and when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. Petitioner invokes the foregoing exceptions urging this Court to pass upon anew the CA's findings regarding the status of the subject land and compliance with the required character and duration of possession by an applicant for judicial confirmation of title.
	GR No. 170008 2009-01-19	DUTCH BOY PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SENIEL SUBSTITUTED BY LIGAYA QUIMPO NACHURA, J.
We reiterate the well-entrenched principle that this Court is not a trier of facts and does not, as a rule, undertake a re-examination of the evidence presented by the parties. A number of exceptions[19] have nevertheless been recognized.[20] Indeed, the difference between the findings of the trial and appellate courts, leading to entirely disparate dispositions, is reason enough for this Court to review the evidence in this case.[21]
	GR No. 168852 2008-09-30	SHARICA MARI L. GO-TAN v. SPS. PERFECTO C. TAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court notes that petitioner unnecessarily argues at great length on the attendance of circumstances evidencing the conspiracy or connivance of Steven and respondents to cause verbal, psychological and economic abuses upon her. However, conspiracy is an evidentiary matter which should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on the merits and cannot be determined in the present petition since this Court is not a trier of facts.[26] It is thus premature for petitioner to argue evidentiary matters since this controversy is centered only on the determination of whether respondents may be included in a petition under R.A. No. 9262. The presence or absence of conspiracy can be best passed upon after a trial on the merits.
	GR No. 152643 2008-08-28	CONCEPCION CUENCO VDA. DE MANGUERRA v. RAUL RISOS NACHURA, J.
However, this Court has repeatedly declared that the failure to implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an action. In such a case, the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court, on motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter may dismiss the complaint/petition for the petitioner's/plaintiff's failure to comply.[22]
	GR No. 171534 2008-06-30	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. WILCON BUILDERS SUPPLY NACHURA, J.
Jurisprudence has established that even the Supreme Court may review and at times reverse and set aside factual findings of both the trial court and the CA in the following cases: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[46]
	GR No. 154885 2008-03-24	DIESEL CONSTRUCTION CO. v. UPSI PROPERTY HOLDINGS VELASCO JR., J.
x x x (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the [CA] went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[30] (Emphasis supplied.)