Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODOLFO M. CUENCA v. ALBERTO P. ATAS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 163356-57 2015-07-01	JOSE A. BERNAS v. JOVENCIO F. CINCO PEREZ, J.
Moreover, it is fundamental rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the SEC, if supported by substantial evidence, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality, and are binding upon this Court unless it was shown that the quasi-judicial agencies had arbitrarily disregarded evidence before it had misapprehended evidence to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion if such evidence had been properly appreciated.[51] It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and credibility of witnesses presented before the lower court, tribunal, or office, as we are not trier of facts.[52] Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, the latter’s finding of facts being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[53] However, when it can be shown that administrative bodies grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, the Court will not hesitate to reverse its factual findings.[54] In the case at bar, the incongruent findings of the SEC on the one hand, and the Court of Appeals on the other, constrained the Court to review the records to ascertain which body correctly appreciated the facts vis-à-vis the standing statutory and jurisprudential principles.
	GR No. 187917 2011-01-19	METROPOLITAN BANK v. SPS. EDMUNDO MIRANDA AND JULIE MIRANDA NACHURA, J.
Metrobank further questions the trial court's finding of overpayment of interests. But like the issue on compliance with the publication requirement, the issue on overpayment of interests involves the ascertainment of facts not subject of review by this Court. We reiterate that our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, the latter's findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[35]
	GR No. 172727 2010-09-08	QUEENSLAND-TOKYO COMMODITIES v. THOMAS GEORGE NACHURA, J.
It is evident that the issue raised in this petition is the correctness of the factual findings of the SEC Hearing Officer, as affirmed by the CA. It is well-settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the records of the case. It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence and the credibility of witnesses presented before the lower court, tribunal, or office, as we are not a trier of facts. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, the latter's findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[16]
	GR No. 179761 2010-01-15	CATMON SALES INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION v. ATTY. MANUEL D. YNGSON NACHURA, J.
Procedural due process is the necessity for notice and an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered. As long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[26]
	GR No. 182311 2009-08-19	FIDEL O. CHUA v. METROPOLITAN BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Forum shopping occurs although the actions seem to be different, when it can be seen that there is a splitting of a cause of action. [35] A cause of action is understood to be the delict or wrongful act or omission committed by the defendant in violation of the primary rights of the plaintiff. It is true that a single act or omission can violate various rights at the same time, as when the act constitutes juridically a violation of several separate and distinct legal obligations. However, where there is only one delict or wrong, there is but a single cause of action regardless of the number of rights that may have been violated belonging to one person.[36]
	GR No. 172537 2009-08-14	JETHRO INTELLIGENCE v. SECRETARY OF LABOR CARPIO MORALES, J.
The sole office of a writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. It does not include the correction of a tribunal's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings thereon, especially since factual findings of administrative agencies are generally held to be binding and final so long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record of the case.[11]
	GR No. 152048 2009-04-07	FELIX B. PEREZ v. PHILIPPINE TELEGRAPH CORONA, J.
In Solid Development Corporation Workers Association v. Solid Development Corporation,[27] we had the occasion to state:[W]ell-settled is the dictum that the twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. It is a cardinal rule in our jurisdiction that the employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing, on the other hand, is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.