This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-08-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The settled rule is that the jurisdiction of this Court over petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law, not of fact.[35] A question of law exists when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts as distinguished from a question of fact which occurs when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged facts.[36] Where the petition makes no mention of any law that was wrongly interpreted or applied by the lower court despite the requirement under Rule 45 that questions of law raised must be "distinctly set forth," there is no basis for the petition.[37] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, the CA granted respondent's petition and reversed the December 15, 1997 RTC decision.[18] Because petitioners raised an identical cause of action and issue, and presented evidence similar to those in previous 349 number fever cases, the appellate court dismissed the petition pursuant to its decision in the cases of Rodrigo[19] and Mendoza.[20] | |||||
|
2005-08-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In the Rodrigo case, the RTC likewise dismissed the complaint against herein respondents for specific performance and damages arising from the said promotion.[12] On appeal, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 62837, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.[13] A petition for review was subsequently filed with this Court, which was denied for failure to show that a reversible error was committed by the appellate court. The motion for reconsideration was also denied with finality[14] and entry of judgment was made.[15] | |||||