Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MA. WENELITA TIRAZONA v. CA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR Nos. 174457-59 2012-12-05	EXPRESS INVESTMENTS III PRIVATE LTD. v. BAYAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Before us, petitioners Bank of New York and Avenue Asia Capital Group raise a question of fact which is not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.[86]
	GR No. 193723 2011-07-20	GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. SPS. LIBRADO RAMOS AND REMEDIOS RAMOS VELASCO JR., J.
In turn, whether or not demand was made is a question of fact. [23] This petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law. For a question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. [24] It need not be reiterated that this Court is not a trier of facts. [25] We will defer to the factual findings of the trial court, because petitioner GMC has not shown any circumstances making this case an exception to the rule.
	GR No. 171238 2011-02-02	F.A.T. KEE COMPUTER SYSTEMS v. ONLINE NETWORKS INTERNATIONAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
As to the substantive issues raised in the instant petition, the Court finds that, indeed, questions of fact are being invoked by FAT KEE. A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[63]
	GR No. 182299 2010-02-22	WILFREDO M. BARON v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence uniformly mandate that no worker shall be dismissed except for a just or valid cause provided by law, and only after due process is properly observed. In a recent decision, [29] this Court said that dismissals have two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.
	GR No. 175064 2009-09-18	PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to prosper, the following requisites must be present: (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or an officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[27]
	GR No. 164423 2009-06-16	TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL v. RAMON L. APOSTOL CARPIO, J.
In cases of termination of employees, the well-entrenched policy is that no worker shall be dismissed except for just or authorized cause provided by law and after due process.[26] Dismissals of employees have two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and second, the legality in the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.[27]
	GR No. 182570 2009-01-27	ROMEO N. VENTURA v. CA NACHURA, J.
Under Article 282(c) of the Labor Code, loss of trust and confidence is one of the just causes for dismissing an employee, where the employee is entrusted with duties of confidence on delicate matters, such as care and protection, and handling or custody of the employer's property.[14] In this case, an Auditor would be one such employee.[15]
	GR No. 164850 2008-09-25	REYNALDO Q. AGULLANO v. CHRISTIAN PUBLISHING NACHURA, J.
The Constitution, statutes and jurisprudence uniformly mandate that no worker shall be dismissed except for a just or valid cause provided by law, and only after due process is properly observed. In a recent decision,[10] this Court said that dismissals have two facets: first, the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and, second, the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process.