Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MERCURY DRUG CORPORATION v. ATTY. RODRIGO B. LIBUNAO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 157607 2009-07-07	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ROWENA O. PADEN BRION, J.
Our review of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to the review of errors of law, unless the following exceptions occur: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issue of the case and the same is contrary to the admission of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; (j) when the finding of fact of the CA is premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record; and (k) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[19] Petitioner failed to convince us that any of these exceptions applies to the present case.
	GR No. 179337 2008-04-30	JOSEPH SALUDAGA v. FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY and EDILBERTO C. DE JESUS in his capacity as President of FEU YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
As held in Mercury Drug Corporation v. Libunao:[29]
	GR NO. 157632 2006-12-06	JOSE S. ROQUE v. JAIME T. TORRES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error in applying the case of Soliman, Jr. v. Tuazon to the case at bar. We agree with the Court of Appeals' finding that respondent cannot be held liable under Article 2180 of the Civil Code for the damages suffered by petitioner because respondent is not the employer of the security guards who inflicted the injuries upon the person of the petitioner. As reiterated in the recent case of Mercury Drug Corporation v. Libunao:[10]
	GR No. 142937 2005-11-15	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. MARITA A. ANGARA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With respect to the verification and certification signed by Atty. Bautista, petitioner's Managing Head for Corporate and Legal Services Department, it is but logical that he be the party affixing his signature therein, considering that the person who is in the best position to ascertain the truthfulness and the correctness of the allegations in the petition is its legal officer, who necessarily knows the status of any suit involving the company.[30]
	GR NO. 146747 2005-08-29	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS CARPIO, J.
We find the appeal meritorious. While only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, review of the lower courts' findings of fact may be granted under certain exceptions.[10] One of the exceptions is when the judgment of the appellate court is premised on a misapprehension of facts.[11] Another is when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record.[12] Also, this Court may review findings of fact when the conclusion of the appellate court manifestly overlooked certain facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[13]
	GR No. 146747 2005-07-29	MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. IMPERIAL TEXTILE MILLS CARPIO, J.
We find the appeal meritorious. While only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, review of the lower courts' findings of fact may be granted under certain exceptions.[10] One of the exceptions is when the judgment of the appellate court is premised on a misapprehension of facts.[11] Another is when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence but is contradicted by the evidence on record.[12] Also, this Court may review findings of fact when the conclusion of the appellate court manifestly overlooked certain facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[13]