Lawyerly

GR No. 186279

2013-04-02

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ARTEMIO S. SAN JUAN

BRION, J.

We stress that the issue presented is a question of fact whose determination entails an evaluation of the evidence on record. Generally, purely factual questions are not passed upon in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 because "this Court is not a trier of facts[.]"[45] In view, however, of the contrary findings made by the CSC and the CA in this case, we shall resolve the presented factual question.[46]

GR No. 175492

2013-02-27

CARLOS L. OCTAVIO v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is settled that "when parties have validly agreed on a procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly observed."[22] Moreover, we have held time and again that "before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a precondition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction[, then] such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of [the] court's judicial intervention is fatal to one's cause of action."[23] "The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that when the administrative body, or grievance machinery, is afforded a chance to pass upon the matter, it will decide the same correctly."[24]

GR No. 163182

2012-10-24

TOM TAN v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO F. YAMSON

MENDOZA, J.

Well-established is the principle that in a petition for review on certiorari, the Court's power of judicial review is limited only to questions of law and that questions of fact cannot be entertained, except in certain instances.[27] The difference between questions of law and questions of fact has been extensively discussed in the case of Velayo-Fong v. Spouses Velayo:[28]

GR No. 185346

2012-06-27

BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO

SERENO, J.

As established by the LA, the NLRC and the CA, the final salary of Lazaro was P38,000, and not P50,000.[25] This consistent factual determination can no longer be retried. It is aphoristic that a reexamination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, because this Court reviews only questions of law.[26]

GR No. 163700

2012-04-18

CHARLIE JAO v. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC.

BERSAMIN, J.

The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. Generally, a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law. Nor may the Court be bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence adduced and considered in the proceedings below.[16] This rule is not absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting.[17]

GR No. 180236

2012-01-17

GEMMA P. CABALIT v. COA-REGION VII

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Cabalit argues that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the Ombudsman finding her liable for dishonesty. She asserts that it was not established by substantial evidence that the forged signatures belong to her. Meanwhile, Apit contends that the CA erred in not considering evidence which proves that the signatures appearing above his name are falsified. However, we note that both Cabalit and Apit raise essentially factual issues which are not proper in petitions filed under Rule 45. Settled jurisprudence dictates that subject to a few exceptions, only questions of law may be brought before the Court via a petition for review on certiorari. In Diokno v. Cacdac , [37] the Court held: x x x [T]he scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained. We elucidated on our fidelity to this rule, and we said:

GR No. 174143

2011-11-28

SPS. RICARDO HIPOLITO v. TERESITA CINCO

DEL CASTILLO, J.

At the outset, "[i]t bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari [under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court], the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the [CA] is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained."[29] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.[30] More so, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh evidence pertaining to factual issues which have not been subject of any proper proceedings below. "Well-entrenched and settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court adequately and on time need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."[31] The determination of who owns the subject property, the authenticity of the evidence of both parties, and whether petitioners are builders in good faith are questions of fact, the resolution of which requires the examination of evidence that should be ventilated in a separate action brought before a proper forum.

GR No. 168583

2010-07-26

ATTY. ALLAN S. MONTA×O v. ATTY. ERNESTO C. VERCELES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

It is true that under the Implementing Rules, redress must first be sought within the organization itself in accordance with its constitution and by-laws. However, this requirement is not absolute but yields to exception under varying circumstances.[32] In the case at bench, Atty. Verceles made his protest over Atty. Montaño's candidacy during the plenary session before the holding of the election proceedings. The FFW COMELEC, notwithstanding its reservation and despite objections from certain convention delegates, allowed Atty. Montaño's candidacy and proclaimed him winner for the position. Under the rules, the committee on election shall endeavor to settle or resolve all protests during or immediately after the close of election proceedings and any protest left unresolved shall be resolved by the committee within five days after the close of the election proceedings.[33] A day or two after the election, Atty. Verceles made his written/formal protest over Atty. Montaño's candidacy/proclamation with the FFW COMELEC. He exhausted the remedies under the constitution and by-laws to have his protest acted upon by the proper forum and even asked for a formal hearing on the matter. Still, the FFW COMELEC failed to timely act thereon. Thus, Atty. Verceles had no other recourse but to take the next available remedy to protect the interest of the union he represents as well as the whole federation, especially so that Atty. Montaño, immediately after being proclaimed, already assumed and started to perform the duties of the position. Consequently, Atty. Verceles properly sought redress from the BLR so that the right to due process will not be violated. To insist on the contrary is to render the exhaustion of remedies within the union as illusory and vain.[34]

GR No. 166108

2010-06-16

SPS. TEOFILO CARPIO AND TEODORA CARPIO v. ANA SEBASTIAN

PERALTA, J.

The second issue raised by petitioners - i.e., whether the CA erred in not pronouncing petitioners as tenants of the disputed land who are entitled to be beneficiaries thereof, making the sale of the land to them valid - cannot likewise be resolved in their favor. Such issue involves a question of fact and settled jurisprudence dictates that, subject to a few exceptions, only questions of law may be brought before the Court via a petition for review on certiorari. Thus, in Diokno v. Cacdac,[7] the Court held, thus: x x x It bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained. We elucidated on our fidelity to this rule, and we said:

GR No. 150887

2009-08-14

FRANCISCO MADRID· v. SPS. BONIFACIO MAPOY AND FELICIDAD MARTINEZ

BRION, J.

A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the consideration of factual issues - an exercise that is not appropriate for the Rule 45 petition that the petitioners-defendants filed; under the Rules of Court, the parties may raise only questions of law under Rule 45, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[16] As a rule, we are not duty-bound to again analyze and weigh the evidence introduced and considered in the tribunals below.[17] This is particularly true where the CA has affirmed the trial court's factual findings, as in the present case. These trial court findings, when affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and are not open for our review on appeal.[18]

GR No. 150270

2008-11-26

CITY ENGINEER OF BAGUIO v. ROLANDO BANIQUED

REYES, R.T., J.

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an iron-clad rule.[37] It admits of several exceptions. Jurisprudence is well-settled that the doctrine does not apply in cases (1) when the question raised is purely legal; (2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; (4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) when the claim involved is small; (6) when irreparable damage will be suffered; (7) when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; (8) when strong public interest is involved; (9) when the subject of the proceeding is private land; (10) in quo warranto proceedings; and (11) where the facts show that there was violation of due process.[38]

GR No. 150824

2008-02-04

LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC

REYES, R.T., J.

It bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the CA is generally confined only to errors of law. Questions of fact are not entertained.[59]

	GR No. 186279 2013-04-02	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ARTEMIO S. SAN JUAN BRION, J.
We stress that the issue presented is a question of fact whose determination entails an evaluation of the evidence on record. Generally, purely factual questions are not passed upon in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 because "this Court is not a trier of facts[.]"[45] In view, however, of the contrary findings made by the CSC and the CA in this case, we shall resolve the presented factual question.[46]
	GR No. 175492 2013-02-27	CARLOS L. OCTAVIO v. PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is settled that "when parties have validly agreed on a procedure for resolving grievances and to submit a dispute to voluntary arbitration then that procedure should be strictly observed."[22] Moreover, we have held time and again that "before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the court, it is a precondition that he should have availed of all the means of administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can still be resorted to by giving the administrative officer concerned every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction[, then] such remedy should be exhausted first before the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of [the] court's judicial intervention is fatal to one's cause of action."[23] "The underlying principle of the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies rests on the presumption that when the administrative body, or grievance machinery, is afforded a chance to pass upon the matter, it will decide the same correctly."[24]
	GR No. 163182 2012-10-24	TOM TAN v. HEIRS OF ANTONIO F. YAMSON MENDOZA, J.
Well-established is the principle that in a petition for review on certiorari, the Court's power of judicial review is limited only to questions of law and that questions of fact cannot be entertained, except in certain instances.[27] The difference between questions of law and questions of fact has been extensively discussed in the case of Velayo-Fong v. Spouses Velayo:[28]
	GR No. 185346 2012-06-27	BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS v. MIGUELITO M. LAZARO SERENO, J.
As established by the LA, the NLRC and the CA, the final salary of Lazaro was P38,000, and not P50,000.[25] This consistent factual determination can no longer be retried. It is aphoristic that a reexamination of factual findings cannot be done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, because this Court reviews only questions of law.[26]
	GR No. 163700 2012-04-18	CHARLIE JAO v. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC. BERSAMIN, J.
The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a question of fact. Generally, a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law. Nor may the Court be bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence adduced and considered in the proceedings below.[16] This rule is not absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting.[17]
	GR No. 180236 2012-01-17	GEMMA P. CABALIT v. COA-REGION VII VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Cabalit argues that the CA erred in affirming the decision of the Ombudsman finding her liable for dishonesty. She asserts that it was not established by substantial evidence that the forged signatures belong to her. Meanwhile, Apit contends that the CA erred in not considering evidence which proves that the signatures appearing above his name are falsified. However, we note that both Cabalit and Apit raise essentially factual issues which are not proper in petitions filed under Rule 45. Settled jurisprudence dictates that subject to a few exceptions, only questions of law may be brought before the Court via a petition for review on certiorari. In Diokno v. Cacdac , [37] the Court held: x x x [T]he scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained. We elucidated on our fidelity to this rule, and we said:
	GR No. 174143 2011-11-28	SPS. RICARDO HIPOLITO v. TERESITA CINCO DEL CASTILLO, J.
At the outset, "[i]t bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari [under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court], the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the [CA] is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained."[29] The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.[30] More so, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh evidence pertaining to factual issues which have not been subject of any proper proceedings below. "Well-entrenched and settled is the rule that points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the trial court adequately and on time need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court as they cannot be raised for the first time on appeal."[31] The determination of who owns the subject property, the authenticity of the evidence of both parties, and whether petitioners are builders in good faith are questions of fact, the resolution of which requires the examination of evidence that should be ventilated in a separate action brought before a proper forum.
	GR No. 168583 2010-07-26	ATTY. ALLAN S. MONTA×O v. ATTY. ERNESTO C. VERCELES DEL CASTILLO, J.
It is true that under the Implementing Rules, redress must first be sought within the organization itself in accordance with its constitution and by-laws. However, this requirement is not absolute but yields to exception under varying circumstances.[32] In the case at bench, Atty. Verceles made his protest over Atty. Montaño's candidacy during the plenary session before the holding of the election proceedings. The FFW COMELEC, notwithstanding its reservation and despite objections from certain convention delegates, allowed Atty. Montaño's candidacy and proclaimed him winner for the position. Under the rules, the committee on election shall endeavor to settle or resolve all protests during or immediately after the close of election proceedings and any protest left unresolved shall be resolved by the committee within five days after the close of the election proceedings.[33] A day or two after the election, Atty. Verceles made his written/formal protest over Atty. Montaño's candidacy/proclamation with the FFW COMELEC. He exhausted the remedies under the constitution and by-laws to have his protest acted upon by the proper forum and even asked for a formal hearing on the matter. Still, the FFW COMELEC failed to timely act thereon. Thus, Atty. Verceles had no other recourse but to take the next available remedy to protect the interest of the union he represents as well as the whole federation, especially so that Atty. Montaño, immediately after being proclaimed, already assumed and started to perform the duties of the position. Consequently, Atty. Verceles properly sought redress from the BLR so that the right to due process will not be violated. To insist on the contrary is to render the exhaustion of remedies within the union as illusory and vain.[34]
	GR No. 166108 2010-06-16	SPS. TEOFILO CARPIO AND TEODORA CARPIO v. ANA SEBASTIAN PERALTA, J.
The second issue raised by petitioners - i.e., whether the CA erred in not pronouncing petitioners as tenants of the disputed land who are entitled to be beneficiaries thereof, making the sale of the land to them valid - cannot likewise be resolved in their favor. Such issue involves a question of fact and settled jurisprudence dictates that, subject to a few exceptions, only questions of law may be brought before the Court via a petition for review on certiorari. Thus, in Diokno v. Cacdac,[7] the Court held, thus: x x x It bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law, and questions of fact are not entertained. We elucidated on our fidelity to this rule, and we said:
	GR No. 150887 2009-08-14	FRANCISCO MADRID· v. SPS. BONIFACIO MAPOY AND FELICIDAD MARTINEZ BRION, J.
A weighing of evidence necessarily involves the consideration of factual issues - an exercise that is not appropriate for the Rule 45 petition that the petitioners-defendants filed; under the Rules of Court, the parties may raise only questions of law under Rule 45, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[16] As a rule, we are not duty-bound to again analyze and weigh the evidence introduced and considered in the tribunals below.[17] This is particularly true where the CA has affirmed the trial court's factual findings, as in the present case. These trial court findings, when affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and are not open for our review on appeal.[18]
	GR No. 150270 2008-11-26	CITY ENGINEER OF BAGUIO v. ROLANDO BANIQUED REYES, R.T., J.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an iron-clad rule.[37] It admits of several exceptions. Jurisprudence is well-settled that the doctrine does not apply in cases (1) when the question raised is purely legal; (2) when the administrative body is in estoppel; (3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; (4) when there is urgent need for judicial intervention; (5) when the claim involved is small; (6) when irreparable damage will be suffered; (7) when there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; (8) when strong public interest is involved; (9) when the subject of the proceeding is private land; (10) in quo warranto proceedings; and (11) where the facts show that there was violation of due process.[38]
	GR No. 150824 2008-02-04	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. REPUBLIC REYES, R.T., J.
It bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the CA is generally confined only to errors of law. Questions of fact are not entertained.[59]

EMILIO E. DIOKNO v. HANS LEO J. CACDAC