Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HKO AH PAO v. LAURENCE TING

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 185346 2012-06-27	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO SERENO, J.
On this point, this Court cannot try the case anew to determine fully whether the CA seriously erred in making a factual conclusion that Lazaro received full payment of his profit shares. This Court is not a trier of facts, and this doctrine applies with greater force to labor cases.[40] We generally do not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the CA.[41] In any event, Lazaro has not demonstrated that Banco Filipino earned profits from 1985 to 1993, the very period during which the bank was closed.
	GR No. 152262 2012-02-15	FELIMON MANGUIOB v. JUDGE PAUL T. ARCANGEL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Thus, since this Court is required to review and evaluate the evidence on record, and even receive new evidence to decide the issue of whether the value of the non-cash assets should be deducted from what Manguiob was adjudged to pay Velasco, the issue then is definitely one of fact, [35] and one that is impermissible, as this Court is not a trier of facts.
	GR No. 169440 2011-11-23	GEMMA ONG v. PEOPLE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As this case reached this Court via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the basic rule is that factual questions are beyond the province of this Court, because only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review.[33] However, in exceptional cases, this Court has taken cognizance of questions of fact in order to resolve legal issues, such as when there was palpable error or a grave misapprehension of facts by the lower court.[34] In Armed Forces of the Philippines Mutual Benefit Association, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[35] we said that although submission of issues of fact in an appeal by certiorari taken to this Court is ordinarily proscribed, this Court nonetheless retains the option in the exercise of its sound discretion, taking into account the attendant circumstances, either to decide the case or refer it to the proper court for determination.[36] Since the determination of the identity of Gemma is the very issue affecting her guilt or innocence, this Court chooses to take cognizance of this case in the interest of proper administration of justice.
	GR No. 175021 2011-06-15	REPUBLIC v. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
This Court has, on many occasions, distinguished between a question of law and a question of fact. We held that when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, then it is a question of law; but when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts, then it is a question of fact. [58] "Simply put, when there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is correct, is a question of law." [59] To elucidate further, this Court, in Hko Ah Pao v. Ting [60] said: One test to determine if there exists a question of fact or law in a given case is whether the Court can resolve the issue that was raised without having to review or evaluate the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it will be a question of fact. Thus, the petition must not involve the calibration of the probative value of the evidence presented. In addition, the facts of the case must be undisputed, and the only issue that should be left for the Court to decide is whether or not the conclusion drawn by the CA from a certain set of facts was appropriate. [61] (Emphases ours.)
	GR No. 159310 2009-02-24	CAMILO F. BORROMEO PUNO, C.J.
The rationale behind the Court's ruling in United Church Board for World Ministries, as reiterated in subsequent cases,[32] is this - since the ban on aliens is intended to preserve the nation's land for future generations of Filipinos, that aim is achieved by making lawful the acquisition of real estate by aliens who became Filipino citizens by naturalization or those transfers made by aliens to Filipino citizens. As the property in dispute is already in the hands of a qualified person, a Filipino citizen, there would be no more public policy to be protected. The objective of the constitutional provision to keep our lands in Filipino hands has been achieved.
	GR NO. 153914 2007-07-31	FELIPE REGIS v. CA NACHURA, J.
The issue of who had prior possession over the disputed property that is located at Del Mar St., Iligan City can no longer be reviewed by this Court. As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when adopted and affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive, and may not be reviewed on appeal by this Court. This Court is not a trier of facts, and generally does not weigh anew the evidence already passed upon by the CA. Absent any showing that some facts of certain weight and substance were overlooked, which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case, the Court, as in this case, will uphold the findings of the RTC and the CA.[18]
	GR NO. 147939 2007-07-06	HEIRS OF CRISTETA DE LA ROSA v. ADELINA CALDERON- BARGAS NACHURA, J.
The alleged failure of the clerks of court to furnish petitioners copies of the letter of transmittal and Notice of Appealed Case that resulted in their inability to file their memorandum on time can no longer be reviewed by this Court. The findings of facts of the RTC are deemed final and conclusive as to this Court, especially when they are adopted and affirmed by the CA.[33]