Lawyerly

GR No. 172778

2012-11-26

MENDOZA, J.

Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[20] The Court, however, recognizes several exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[21] Several exceptions obtain in this case; hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted.

GR No. 189998

2012-08-29

MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL v. ELLEN JOHANNE HARPER

BERSAMIN, J.

The Court concurs entirely with the findings and conclusions of the CA, which the Court regards to be thorough and supported by the records of the trial. Moreover, the Court cannot now review and pass upon the uniform findings of negligence by the CA and the RTC because doing so would require the Court to delve into and revisit the factual bases for the finding of negligence, something fully contrary to its character as not a trier of facts. In that regard, the factual findings of the trial court that are supported by the evidence on record, especially when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on the Court.[37] Consequently, the Court will not review unless there are exceptional circumstances for doing so, such as the following: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;

GR No. 189301

2010-12-15

PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE

VELASCO JR., J.

The rationale for awarding moral damages has been explained in Lambert v. Heirs of Rey Castillon: "[T]he award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted."[31]

GR No. 186312

2010-06-29

SPS. DANTE CRUZ v. SUN HOLIDAYS

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The first factor, i.e., life expectancy, is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 -- age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality.[31]

GR No. 150228

2009-07-30

BANK OF AMERICA NT v. PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Explaining this provision in Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon,[25] the Court held: The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. xxx xxx xxx

GR No. 165969

2008-11-27

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN

REYES, R.T., J.

As a rule, only questions of law may be entertained on appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. The finding of negligence on the part of petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the CA is a question of fact which We cannot pass upon since it would entail going into factual matters on which the finding of negligence was based.[8] Corollary to this, the finding by both courts of the lack of contributory negligence on the part of the victim is a factual issue which is deemed conclusive upon this Court absent any compelling reason for Us to rule otherwise.

GR No. 161946

2008-11-14

MEDARDO AG. CADIENTE v. BITHUEL MACAS

QUISUMBING, J.

The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full, but must proportionately bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant is thus held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence.[17]

GR No. 148606

2008-06-30

CHARLES LIMBAUAN v. FAUSTINO ACOSTA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Petitioner next argues that no lessor-lessee relationship existed between him and respondent. This argument clearly deals with a question of fact. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put in issue. Questions of fact cannot be entertained.[17] The issue of whether or not a lessor-lessee relationship existed between the herein parties is a question of fact which we cannot pass upon as it would entail a re-evaluation of the evidence and a review of the factual findings thereon of the courts a quo. As a rule, factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[18] We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the MTC and the RTC, which the Court of Appeals had affirmed.

GR No. 171052

2008-01-28

PHILIPPINE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS v. CARMELA ESTRADA

NACHURA, J.

We cannot overemphasize the principle that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rules 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put into issue. Questions of fact are not cognizable by this Court. The finding of "efficient procuring cause" by the CA is a question of fact which we desist from passing upon as it would entail delving into factual matters on which such finding was based. To reiterate, the rule is that factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11]

GR NO. 163212

2007-03-13

CANDANO SHIPPING LINES v. FLORENTINA J. SUGATA-ON

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Jurisprudence provides that the first factor, i.e., life expectancy, shall be computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 - age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality.[30]

GR NO. 144723

2006-02-27

LARRY ESTACION v. NOE BERNARDO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

The underlying precept of the above article on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence.[32]

GR NO. 146635

2005-12-14

MARCELO MACALINAO v. EDDIE MEDECIELO ONG

TINGA, J.

In the case of Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon,[56] we held that in quasi-delicts:. . . . the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender.[57] (Emphasis Supplied.) The trial court awarded moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 but since prevailing jurisprudence has fixed the same at P50,000.00,[58] there is a need to increase the award to reflect the recent rulings.

	GR No. 172778 2012-11-26	SABINIANO DUMAYAG v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[20] The Court, however, recognizes several exceptions to this rule, to wit: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[21] Several exceptions obtain in this case; hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted.
	GR No. 189998 2012-08-29	MAKATI SHANGRI-LA HOTEL v. ELLEN JOHANNE HARPER BERSAMIN, J.
The Court concurs entirely with the findings and conclusions of the CA, which the Court regards to be thorough and supported by the records of the trial. Moreover, the Court cannot now review and pass upon the uniform findings of negligence by the CA and the RTC because doing so would require the Court to delve into and revisit the factual bases for the finding of negligence, something fully contrary to its character as not a trier of facts. In that regard, the factual findings of the trial court that are supported by the evidence on record, especially when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on the Court.[37] Consequently, the Court will not review unless there are exceptional circumstances for doing so, such as the following: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;
	GR No. 189301 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE VELASCO JR., J.
The rationale for awarding moral damages has been explained in Lambert v. Heirs of Rey Castillon: "[T]he award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted."[31]
	GR No. 186312 2010-06-29	SPS. DANTE CRUZ v. SUN HOLIDAYS CARPIO MORALES, J.
The first factor, i.e., life expectancy, is computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 -- age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality.[31]
	GR No. 150228 2009-07-30	BANK OF AMERICA NT v. PHILIPPINE RACING CLUB LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Explaining this provision in Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon,[25] the Court held: The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence. xxx xxx xxx
	GR No. 165969 2008-11-27	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF NOBLE CASIONAN REYES, R.T., J.
As a rule, only questions of law may be entertained on appeal by certiorari under Rule 45. The finding of negligence on the part of petitioner by the trial court and affirmed by the CA is a question of fact which We cannot pass upon since it would entail going into factual matters on which the finding of negligence was based.[8] Corollary to this, the finding by both courts of the lack of contributory negligence on the part of the victim is a factual issue which is deemed conclusive upon this Court absent any compelling reason for Us to rule otherwise.
	GR No. 161946 2008-11-14	MEDARDO AG. CADIENTE v. BITHUEL MACAS QUISUMBING, J.
The underlying precept on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full, but must proportionately bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant is thus held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence.[17]
	GR No. 148606 2008-06-30	CHARLES LIMBAUAN v. FAUSTINO ACOSTA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Petitioner next argues that no lessor-lessee relationship existed between him and respondent. This argument clearly deals with a question of fact. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put in issue. Questions of fact cannot be entertained.[17] The issue of whether or not a lessor-lessee relationship existed between the herein parties is a question of fact which we cannot pass upon as it would entail a re-evaluation of the evidence and a review of the factual findings thereon of the courts a quo. As a rule, factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[18] We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the MTC and the RTC, which the Court of Appeals had affirmed.
	GR No. 171052 2008-01-28	PHILIPPINE HEALTH-CARE PROVIDERS v. CARMELA ESTRADA NACHURA, J.
We cannot overemphasize the principle that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rules 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be put into issue. Questions of fact are not cognizable by this Court. The finding of "efficient procuring cause" by the CA is a question of fact which we desist from passing upon as it would entail delving into factual matters on which such finding was based. To reiterate, the rule is that factual findings of the trial court, especially those affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[11]
	GR NO. 163212 2007-03-13	CANDANO SHIPPING LINES v. FLORENTINA J. SUGATA-ON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Jurisprudence provides that the first factor, i.e., life expectancy, shall be computed by applying the formula (2/3 x [80 - age at death]) adopted in the American Expectancy Table of Mortality or the Actuarial of Combined Experience Table of Mortality.[30]
	GR NO. 144723 2006-02-27	LARRY ESTACION v. NOE BERNARDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The underlying precept of the above article on contributory negligence is that a plaintiff who is partly responsible for his own injury should not be entitled to recover damages in full but must bear the consequences of his own negligence. The defendant must thus be held liable only for the damages actually caused by his negligence.[32]
	GR NO. 146635 2005-12-14	MARCELO MACALINAO v. EDDIE MEDECIELO ONG TINGA, J.
In the case of Lambert v. Heirs of Ray Castillon,[56] we held that in quasi-delicts:. . . . the award of moral damages is aimed at a restoration, within the limits possible, of the spiritual status quo ante; and therefore, it must be proportionate to the suffering inflicted. The intensity of the pain experienced by the relatives of the victim is proportionate to the intensity of affection for him and bears no relation whatsoever with the wealth or means of the offender.[57] (Emphasis Supplied.) The trial court awarded moral damages in the amount of P30,000.00 but since prevailing jurisprudence has fixed the same at P50,000.00,[58] there is a need to increase the award to reflect the recent rulings.

NELEN LAMBERT v. HEIRS OF RAY CASTILLON