Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO CULABA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 168437 2009-01-08	LAURINIO GOMA v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
And this factual determination, as a matter of long and sound appellate practice, deserves great weight and shall not be disturbed on appeal, except only for the most convincing reasons,[14] such as when that determination is clearly without evidentiary support on record[15] or when the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts or overlooked certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[16] This is as it should be since it is not the function of the Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to evaluate and weigh all over again the evidence presented or the premises supportive of the factual holdings of lower courts.[17]
	GR NO. 164159 2007-07-17	HONORIO C. BULOS v. KOJI YASUMA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is well-settled that the findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded the highest degree of respect, and generally will not be disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusive to the Court. Furthermore, it is not the Court's function under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. The jurisdiction of the Court in a Petition for Review under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing only errors of law.[19] Unless the case falls under the recognized exceptions,[20] the rule shall not be disturbed.
	GR NO. 163605 2006-09-20	GIL M. CEMBRANO v. CITY OF BUTUAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
On the first issue, the respondent City, as judgment debtor, is burdened to prove with legal certainty that its obligation under the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 55049 has been discharged by payment, which under Article 1240 of the Civil Code, is a mode of extinguishing an obligation.[55] Article 1240 of the Civil Code provides that payment shall be made to the person in whose favor the obligation has been constituted, or his successor-in-interest, or any person authorized to receive it.[56]
	GR NO. 152335 2005-12-19	ROMEO G. LORENZO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
It is doctrinal that the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals affirming those of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality, by this Court.[25] It is likewise very basic that only errors of law and not of fact are reviewable by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 under which this petition is filed. It is not the Court's function under Rule 45 to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[26] A scrutiny of the issues raised shows that petitioner actually seeks this Court's reevaluation of the facts and evidence. The issues and errors alleged in this petition are the very same questions of fact raised in the appeal before the Court of Appeals, although couched in different terms and explained more lengthily in the petition.