This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-08-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Sixth, we cannot grant BPI's prayer that the petition for rehabilitation be ordered dismissed and terminated. To dismiss the petition for rehabilitation would be to reverse improperly the final course of that petition: the petition was granted by the RTC; the RTC decision was affirmed with finality; and the rehabilitation plan is now being implemented. And while the Interim Rules[30] and the new Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation[31] contain provisions on termination of the corporate rehabilitation proceedings, neither the RTC nor the CA ruled on this point. In fact, BPI did not ask the CA to terminate the rehabilitation proceedings.[32] Aside from being another new issue, its resolution involves factual matters such as: (1) whether there was failure to achieve the desired targets or goals as set forth in the rehabilitation plan; (2) whether there was failure of the debtor (SBC) to perform its obligations under the plan; (3) whether the rehabilitation plan may no longer be implemented in accordance with its terms, conditions, restrictions or assumptions; or (4) whether there was successful implementation of the rehabilitation plan. We are not at liberty to consider these factual matters for the first time. This Court is not a trier of facts and our role in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is limited to reviewing or reversing errors of law.[33] The Rule 45 petition itself must raise only questions of law.[34] | |||||
|
2009-03-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The present petition merely reiterates the issues raised and settled by the RTC and the CA. On this score, it is well to emphasize the rule that the Court's role in a petition under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing or reversing errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive on the parties. Since such findings are generally not reviewable, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below, unless the factual findings complained of are devoid of support from the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[6] | |||||