Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GODOFREDO MORALES v. SKILLS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 178699 2011-09-21	BPI EMPLOYEES UNION - METRO MANILA v. BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS DEL CASTILLO, J.
We rule that Uy is entitled to the teller's functional allowance since Uy's function as a teller at the time of her dismissal was factually established and was never impugned by the parties during the proceedings held in the main case. Besides, BPI did not present any evidence to substantiate its allegation that Uy was assigned as a low-counter staff at the time of her dismissal. It is a hornbook rule that he who alleges must prove.[42] Neither was there any proof on record which could support this bare allegation.
	GR No. 182299 2010-02-22	WILFREDO M. BARON v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the issues raise questions of fact which are not proper subjects of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. It is axiomatic that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed. [26] Furthermore, factual findings of administrative agencies, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court. This is so because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial agencies from presiding over matters falling within their jurisdiction, which is confined to specific matters. So long as these factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, this Court will not disturb the same. [27]
	GR No. 168800 2009-04-16	NEW REGENT SOURCES v. TEOFILO VICTOR TANJUATCO CARPIO, J.
In its petition, NRSI questions the trial court's dismissal of its complaint upon a demurrer to evidence and invites a calibration of the evidence on record to determine the sufficiency of the factual basis for the trial court's order. This factual analysis, however, would involve questions of fact which are improper in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is well established that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[19] A question of law exists when there is doubt or difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[20] There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted, and the doubt concerns the correct application of law and jurisprudence on the matter.[21] Otherwise, there is a question of fact. Since it raises essentially questions of fact, the instant petition must be denied.
	GR No. 172601 2009-04-16	AILEEN G. HERIDA v. F & C PAWNSHOP & JEWELRY STORE & MARCELINO FLORETE QUISUMBING, J.
As it is, the question raised in this recourse is basically one of fact. Hornbook is the rule that in a petition for review, only errors of law may be raised.[14] Furthermore, factual findings of administrative agencies that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court. This is so because of the specialized knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial agencies from presiding over matters falling within their jurisdiction. So long as these factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, this Court will not disturb the same.[15]
	GR No. 168116 2008-04-22	BELLE CORPORATION v. ARTURO N. MACASUSI QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that the issues raise questions of fact which are not proper subjects of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. It is axiomatic that in an appeal by certiorari, only questions of law may be reviewed.[13] Furthermore, factual findings of administrative agencies that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court. This is so because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial agencies from presiding over matters falling within their jurisdiction. So long as these factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, this Court will not disturb the same.[14]
	GR No. 170049 2008-03-14	GENEROSO A. JUABAN and FRANCIS M. ZOSA v. RENE ESPINA and CEBU DISCOVERY BAY PROPERTIES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have held in Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.[18] and Morales v. Skills International Company,[19] that:The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is settled. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Though this delineation seems simple, determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometime problematic. For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases where the facts are not in dispute automatically involve purely questions of law.