This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-10-04 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court, in New Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.), Inc. v. Abad,[72] reiterated the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact, viz: We reiterate the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. (Citation omitted.) | |||||
|
2011-12-13 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| PAGCOR attempts to justify its resort to Rule 65 by reasoning that this petition does not involve a "novel question of law" required in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45. Rule 45, however, merely requires that there be a "question of law," which according to jurisprudence exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts,[28] as in this case. The rulings made by the CA and the issues now involved in this petition are on the application of the CSC rules and relevant jurisprudence on the right of the respondent to due process. While the case originally brought before the CSC delved on the grounds for the petitioner's decision to dismiss Manahan from the service, the issue now before us has become limited to the propriety and correctness of the case's remand to PAGCOR for further investigation after a finding of violation of the respondent's right to due process, a matter that involves the proper application of law and jurisprudence for its proper resolution. | |||||
|
2011-01-17 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| In New Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) Inc. v. Fermina S. Abad and Rafael Susan,[10] the Court reiterated the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact in this wise: We reiterate the distinction between a question of law and a question of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of the facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when a doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances, as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-01-21 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We find no impropriety in the petition from the standpoint of Rule 45. The petitioners do not question the findings of facts of the assailed decisions. They question the misapplication of the law and jurisprudence on the facts recognized by the decisions. For example, they question as contrary to law their exclusion from the CBA after they were recognized as regular rank-and-file employees of ABS-CBN. They also question the basis in law of the dismissal of the four drivers and the legal propriety of the redundancy action taken against. To reiterate the established distinctions between questions of law and questions of fact, we quote hereunder our ruling in New Rural Bank of Guimba (N.E.) Inc. v. Fermina S. Abad and Rafael Susan:[27] | |||||