Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. RICARDO ALMENDRALA AND ROSARIO DOROJA v. SPS. WING ON NGO AND LILY T. NGO

This case has been cited 12 times or more.

	GR No. 212058 2015-12-07	STAR ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. R & G CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT & TRADING VELASCO JR., J.
It is an established rule that in the exercise of its power of review under Rule 45, the Court only resolves questions of law and not questions of facts. However, this rule is not absolute. Jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Supreme Court, such as: (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 the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (4) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (5) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (6) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (7) 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; (8) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; or (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[28]
	GR No. 179685 2013-06-19	CONRADA O. ALMAGRO v. SPS. MANUEL AMAYA VELASCO JR., J.
The issue raised is essentially factual in nature. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions and errors of law, not of fact, may be raised before the Court.[19] Not being a trier of facts, it is not the function of the Court to re-examine, winnow and weigh anew the respective sets of evidence of the parties. Corollary to this precept, but subject to well-defined exceptions,[20] is the rule that findings of fact of trial courts or the CA, when supported by substantial evidence on record, are conclusive and binding on the Court.[21] But for compelling reasons, such as when the factual findings of the trying court or body are in conflict with those of the appellate court, or there was a misapprehension of facts or when the inference drawn from the facts was manifestly mistaken,[22] this Court shall analyze or weigh the evidence again and if necessary reverse the factual findings of the courts a quo. This is precisely the situation obtaining in this case. The findings, on the one hand, of RARAD Arrieta and, those of the DARAB and the CA, on the other, relative to the appreciation of evidence adduced in hearings before RARAD Arrieta, are incompatible with each other.
	GR No. 164423 2009-06-16	TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL v. RAMON L. APOSTOL CARPIO, J.
As a general rule, petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure filed before this Court may only raise questions of law. However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions to this rule. In Almendrala v. Ngo,[17] we have enumerated several instances when this Court may review findings of fact of the Court of Appeals on appeal by certiorari, to wit:[18] (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 misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals 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 that 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; or (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.
	GR No. 171374 2008-04-08	TEOFILA ILAGAN-MENDOZA and ROSARIO ILAGAN URCIA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Admittedly, the above rule is not absolute, as it admits of certain exceptions, to wit: (a) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and, (h) where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioners are not disputed by the respondents, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. [27]
	GR No. 169712 2008-03-14	MA. WENELITA TIRAZONA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and adopted as its own the latter's factual findings. Long established is the doctrine that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. When passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed.[42] Though this doctrine is not without exceptions,[43] the Court finds that none are applicable to the present case.
	GR No. 172101 2007-11-23	REPUBLIC v. ASIAPRO COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Although as a rule, in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court,[23] said rule is not without exceptions. There are several recognized exceptions[24] in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court. One of these exceptions finds application in this present case which is, when the findings of fact are conflicting. There are, indeed, conflicting findings espoused by the petitioner SSC and the appellate court relative to the existence of employer-employee relationship between the respondent cooperative and its owners-members, which necessitates a departure from the oft-repeated rule that factual issues may not be the subject of appeals to this Court.
	GR No. 163775 2007-10-19	OSCAR G. SAPITAN v. JB LINE BICOL EXPRESS CORONA, J.
This holds true in the present case...the Administrative Manager of petitioner corporation, who signed the verification and certificate of non-forum shopping, initially failed to submit a secretary's certificate or a board resolution confirming her authority to sign on behalf of co-petitioner... Although respondent JB Line claims that it substantially complied with the requirement, albeit belatedly (when it submitted a secretary's certificate to the CA), said certificate, however, was neither dated nor its signatory Lao Huan Ling authorized to sign the verification and the certification of non-forum shopping to be filed in the CA. The records disclose that Lao Huan Ling's authority was to represent respondent JB Line only before the LA and in the NLRC. While, as a rule, factual (and evidentiary) issues are beyond the province of our judicial review under Rule 45,[26] a discrepancy between the findings of the CA and those of the LA and NLRC (as in this case) excludes it from the purview of said rule.[27]
	GR NO. 169129 2007-03-28	SPS. VIRGILIO F. SANTOS v. SPS. JOSE LUMBAO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is well-settled that in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court.[13] But, the rule is not without exceptions. There are several recognized exceptions[14] in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court. One of these exceptions is when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court. This exception is present in the case at bar.
	GR NO. 166865 2007-03-02	ANGELITA F. BUENAVENTURA v. REPUBLIC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As a rule, in the exercise of the Supreme Court's power of review, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case considering that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the Court.[14] However, the rule is not without exceptions. There are several recognized exceptions[15] in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court and two of these exceptions find application in this present case, to wit: (1) when the findings of the appellate court are contrary to those of the trial court; and (2) when the findings of fact of the appellate court are premised on the supposed absence of evidence but contradicted by the evidence on record.
	GR NO. 167767 2006-08-29	SPS. WILLIAM AND JEANETTE YAO v. CARLOMAGNO B. MATELA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The rule that the Supreme Court does not resolve questions of facts, however, is not absolute. Jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by the Supreme Court, such as: (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 Court of Appeals 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; or (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.[14]
	GR NO. 152922 2006-07-12	DAKILA TRADING CORPORATION v. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the outset, we must first emphasize that this Court is not a trier of facts. This Court, in numerous instances, have had occasion to explain that it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. However, we have also ruled that there are instances when this Court may resolve factual issues, such as: 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 Court of Appeals 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; or 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.[5] Consequently, in order to settle the controversy before us, this Court has decide to review the evidence presented before the trial court.
	GR NO. 153817 2006-03-31	NOLITO D. SOLMAYOR v. ANTONIO L. ARROYO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Respondent further contends, and the same is admitted by petitioners, that the settlement of the issues assailed in this petition centers on the review of certain facts which, as a general rule, may not be raised in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court, in numerous instances have had occasion to explain that it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. As a rule, the Court respects the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and quasi-judicial agencies like the DAR, giving them a certain measure of finality.[15] However, we have ruled that factual findings of a quasi-judicial institution which are not supported by substantial and credible evidence do not bind this Court, e.g. the findings and conclusions have no basis in the records or are contrary to the evidence on record or the factual determinations of an appellate body are contrary to those of the initial fact-finding agency.[16] Moreover, we have outlined several instances when this Court may resolve factual issues, such as: 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 Court of Appeals 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; or 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.[17]