This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-10-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The resolution of the issue of respondent's entitlement to liquidated damages hinges on whether petitioner was in default in the performance of its obligation.[39] | |||||
|
2010-07-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The issues raised by petitioners essentially delve into factual matters which were already passed upon by the RTC and the CA. Conclusions and findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless for strong and cogent reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine real evidence, as well as to observe the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying in the case. The fact that the CA adopted the findings of fact of the trial court makes the same binding upon this Court.Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[40] To be sure, findings of fact of lower courts are deemed conclusive and binding upon the Supreme Court, save only for clear and exceptional reasons,[41] none of which is present in the case at bar. | |||||