Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PROFESSIONAL ACADEMIC PLANS v. DINNAH L. CRISOSTOMO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 139672 2009-03-04	GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION v. RTC OF KALOOKAN CITY LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In any event, the purported withdrawal of Civil Case No. C-474 and the authenticity of the amicable settlement attached to the present petition are factual issues improperly and belatedly raised in this appeal. It is elementary that in a petition for review under Rule 45 only legal, not factual, issues may be raised before this Court unless exceptional circumstances exist to warrant a review of the facts.[16] A perusal of the GAUF's petition filed with the CA would also show that the alleged valid amicable settlement of Civil Case No. C-474 was not raised therein as a ground for the annulment of the Joint Order dated August 29, 1986 and December 23, 1988 Order. Petitioner is, therefore, precluded from raising this argument for the first time on appeal. All in all, we find no reason to disturb the trial court's finding that:Even on the assumptions that the void "Compromise Agreement" dated November 28, 1961 and the subsequent Amicable Settlement dated July 13, 1978 between the intervenor and Gregorio Bajamonde or heirs were both valid, the tenants, particularly Gregorio Bajamonde or heirs, have all the rights (sic) to regard as rescinded the said two (2) agreements by reason of the consistent refusals or failures of the intervenor to fully comply with or to abide with its obligations or commitments to the affected tenants.
	GR No. 172651 2007-10-02	UNITED OVERSEAS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ROSEMOOR MINING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Professional Academic Plans, Inc. v. Crisostomo,[41] this Court declared: Factual issues are beyond the province of the Supreme Court in a petition for review, for it is not the Court's function to weigh the evidence all over again. While the Court may, in exceptional cases, resolve factual issues, the petitioners herein failed to establish any such exceptional circumstances. Moreover, it is doctrinal that findings of facts of the CA upholding those of the trial court are binding upon the Supreme Court. Thus, we find no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court as sustained by the appellate court.
	GR NO. 143972 2007-08-31	PACIFIC BASIN SECURITIES CO. v. ORIENTAL PETROLEUM AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The issue on exemplary damages deserves scant consideration. Well settled is the rule that although exemplary damages are not recoverable as a matter of right, and although such damages may not be proved, it must first be shown that the claimant is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before a court can favorably consider an award of exemplary damages.[44]