Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

WILFRED A. NICOLAS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171491 2009-09-04	DR. CASTOR C. DE JESUS v. RAFAEL D. GUERRERO III QUISUMBING, J.
Neither will the allegation of the principle of command responsibility make the respondents liable. In the absence of substantial evidence of gross negligence of the respondents, administrative liability could not be based on the principle of command responsibility.[37] Without proof that the head of office was negligent, no administrative liability may attach. Indeed, the negligence of subordinates cannot always be ascribed to their superior in the absence of evidence of the latter's own negligence.[38] While it may be true that certain PCAMRD employees were sanctioned for negligence and some other administrative infractions, it does not follow that those holding responsible positions, like the respondents in this case, are likewise negligent, especially so when the contentions of petitioner remain unsubstantiated.
	GR No. 149017 2008-11-28	VALENTE RAYMUNDO v. TEOFISTA ISAGON VDA. DE SUAREZ NACHURA, J.
Herein respondents' status as legitimate children of Marcelo Sr. and Teofista and thus, Marcelo Sr.'s heirs has been firmly established, and confirmed by this Court in Suarez v. Court of Appeals.[35] True, this Court is not a trier of facts,[36] but as the final arbiter of disputes,[37] we found and so ruled that herein respondents are children, and heirs of their deceased father, Marcelo Sr. This having been settled, it should no longer have been a litigated issue when we ordered a remand to the lower court. In short, petitioner Valente's, Violeta's, Virginia's, and Maria Concepcion's representation in the RTC that our ruling in Suarez required herein respondents to present evidence of their affiliation with the deceased, Marcelo Sr., is wrong.
	GR No. 150931 2008-07-16	DR. CECILIA DE LOS SANTOS v. DR. PRISCILA BAUTISTA VIBAR CARPIO, J.
The issue before us is a question of fact, the determination of which is beyond this Court's power of review for it is not a trier of facts.[18] However, there are instances when questions of fact may be reviewed by this Court, as when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court.[19] In the present case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals made conflicting findings of fact. Thus, a review of such factual findings is in order.
	GR NO. 169029 2006-08-22	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROGELIO Q. TONGSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised,[51] since the Court, after all, is not a trier of facts.[52] Unless for exceptional reasons, It is not to review the evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof.[53] However, factual issues may be delved into and resolved where, as in this case, the findings and conclusions of the Office of the Ombudsman in its decision are frontally inconsistent with those in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA.[54]
	GR No. 164921 2005-07-08	ROSENDO H. ESCARA v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This well entrenched rule is, however, not without any exception. When the records clearly show a misapprehension of facts by the lower court, the Supreme Court in the interest of speedy justice may resolve the factual issue.[28]