This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have consistently declared that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal[9] as this Court is not a trier of facts.[10] It is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, subject to certain exceptions,[11] none of which is present in this case. As we said in Zaragoza vs. Nobleza:[12] | |||||
|
2009-10-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' bare invocation of "the interest of substantial justice" does not lie."[21] Only under exceptionally meritorious cases may a relaxation from an otherwise stringent rule be allowed "to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed" [22] - the existence of which petitioners failed to demonstrate. | |||||
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The claim [of] [therein] petitioner Emiliano Rabina that the subject landholding was not really owned by the Rabina family but by the Quitoriano family and that there was false representation by [private] respondent Aglibot that the land is owned by the Rabina family[;] hence, he sold the subject landholding to [private respondent] Aglibot could not be admitted by the Board. The Board could not accept the claim of false representation by Emiliano Rabina. It is hard to imagine that Emiliano Rabina who is a government prosecutor could be misled by his tenant, [private] respondent Aglibot. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that Fiscal Emiliano Rabina could not identify the boundaries of his properties.[17] It is thus beyond this Court's jurisdiction to review the factual finding of the Provincial Adjudicator, DARAB and the Court of Appeals that no fraud or misrepresentation attended the execution of the Deed of Absolute Transfer. Whether the body of proofs presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by an adverse party, may be said to be strong, clear and convincing, whether certain documents presented by one side should be accorded full faith and credit in the face of protests as to their spurious character by the other side, whether inconsistencies in the body of proofs of a party are of such gravity as to justify refusing to give said proofs weight, all these are issues of fact which may not be passed upon in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[18] The Court is not a trier of facts.[19] It is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh evidence.[20] The jurisdiction of this Court over cases brought to it is limited to the review and rectification of errors allegedly committed by the lower courts.[21] The recognized exceptions are not here present.[22] Hence, the general rule holds true in the present Petition. | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| "fn">[25] However, the failure to perfect an appeal is not a mere technicality as it raises a jurisdictional problem which deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction over the appeal.[26] After a decision is declared final and executory, vested rights are acquired by the winning party. Just as a losing party has the right to appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the decision in the case.[27] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The Resolutions of the Court of Appeals, dated July 5, 2000 and November 24, 2000, are AFFIRMED. | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| ART. 223. Appeals. Decisions, awards, or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the Commission by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from receipt of such decisions, awards, or orders, x x x. In Tomas Claudio Memorial College, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[3] we held that the above provision governs appeals from awards or final orders of the Labor Arbiter to the NLRC. The right to appeal is not part of due process but a mere statutory privilege that has to be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Since the perfection of an appeal within the statutory reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional,[4] petitioners' failure to perfect their appeal to the NLRC seasonably rendered the Labor Arbiter's Decision final and executory. Accordingly, the NLRC has no jurisdiction to give due course to petitioners' appeal, much less render a Resolution modifying the Labor Arbiter's Decision. Indeed, such Resolution is a patent nullity for want of jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioner admits that the issues on appeal are factual. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, for the simple reason that the Court is not a trier of facts. The findings of the trial court as affirmed by the CA are conclusive on this Court, absent proof of any of the recognized exceptional circumstances[5] such as: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the finding of absence of facts is contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) the findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[6] | |||||