Lawyerly

GR No. 188802

2011-02-14

REVELINA LIMSON v. WACK WACK CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION

CARPIO MORALES, J.

In a multi-occupancy dwelling such as Apartments, limitations are imposed under R.A. 4726[9] in accordance with the common interest and safety of the occupants therein which at times may curtail the exercise of ownership. To maintain safe, harmonious and secured living conditions, certain stipulations are embodied in the duly registered deed of restrictions, in this case the Master Deed, and in house rules which the condominium corporation, like respondent, is mandated to implement. Upon acquisition of a unit, the owner not only affixes his conformity to the sale; he also binds himself to a contract with other unit owners.[10]

GR No. 183788

2010-04-05

KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI v. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Here, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by petitioner's counsel. Upon receipt of the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing her petition for non-compliance with the rules, petitioner submitted, together with her motion for reconsideration, a verification and certification signed by her in compliance with the said rule. [40] We deem this to be sufficient compliance especially in view of the merits of the case, which may be considered as a special circumstance or a compelling reason that would justify tempering the hard consequence of the procedural requirement on non-forum shopping. [41]

GR No. 154270

2010-03-09

TEOFISTO OÑO v. VICENTE N. LIM

BERSAMIN, J.

The Court cannot anymore review the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence, because the Court is not a trier of facts.[21] Although this rule admits of certain exceptions, viz: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjecture; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and the findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and, (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record,[22] it does not appear now that any of the exceptions is present herein. We thus apply the rule without hesitation, and reject the appeal for that reason.

GR No. 172671

2009-04-16

MARISSA R. UNCHUAN v. ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA

QUISUMBING, J.

Petitioner, likewise, calls on the Court to ascertain Peregrina's physical ability to execute the Deed of Sale on March 11, 1994. This essentially necessitates a calibration of facts, which is not the function of this Court.[29] Nevertheless, we have sifted through the Decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals but found no reason to overturn their factual findings. Both the trial court and appellate court noted the lack of substantial evidence to establish total impossibility for Peregrina to execute the Deed of Sale.

GR No. 167560

2008-09-17

CIR v. DOMINADOR MENGUITO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

As a general rule, the Court does not venture into a trial of facts in proceedings under Rule 45 of the Rules of Courts, for its only function is to review errors of law.[26] The Court declines to inquire into errors in the factual assessment of the CA, for the latter's findings are conclusive, especially when these are synonymous to those of the CTA.[27] But when the CA contradicts the factual findings of the CTA, the Court deems it necessary to determine whether the CA was justified in doing so, for one basic rule in taxation is that the factual findings of the CTA, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the CTA committed gross error in its appreciation of facts.[28]

GR NO. 158328

2007-02-23

FRANCO ESGUERRA v. ALFONSO MANANTAN

QUISUMBING, J.

Notwithstanding, petitioner's right to possess and claim of ownership over Lot No. 661 are substantiated, contrary to the findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals. This Court is not a trier of facts and not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below, unless there is a misapprehension of facts or failure to consider certain relevant facts which, if properly taken into account, will justify a different conclusion.[20]

GR No. 144435

2007-02-06

GUILLERMINA BALUYUT v. EULOGIO POBLETE

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Petitioner admits that the issue regarding the date of maturity of the loan which she incurred from the Poblete spouses was first brought up only in her Addendum to the Motion for Reconsideration filed before the CA. In an effort to clothe her argument with merit, petitioner contends that the CA should have properly considered this issue in the interest of justice and equity. The Court is not persuaded. It is settled that an issue not raised during trial could not be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.[12] Contrary to petitioner's contention, it would be the height of injustice if the CA allowed her to raise an issue at a very late stage of the proceedings. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present evidence in contra to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[13] It is true that this rule admits of exceptions as in cases of lack of jurisdiction, where the lower court committed plain error, where there are jurisprudential developments affecting the issues, or when the issues raised present a matter of public policy.[14] However, the Court finds that none of these exceptions are present in the instant case.

GR NO. 163707

2006-09-15

MICHAEL C. GUY v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification of non-forum shopping should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal party. Failure to comply with the requirement shall be cause for dismissal of the case. However, a liberal application of the rules is proper where the higher interest of justice would be served. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[11] we ruled that while a petition may have been flawed where the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, this procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice.[12] So it is in the present controversy where the merits[13] of the case and the absence of an intention to violate the rules with impunity should be considered as compelling reasons to temper the strict application of the rules.

GR No. 154645

2004-07-13

MILAGROS JOAQUINO v. REYES

PANGANIBAN, J.

The above issue, which is clearly factual, has been passed upon by both the trial and the appellate courts, with similar results in favor of respondents. Such finding is generally conclusive; it is not the function of this Court to review questions of fact. [20]

GR No. 129638

2003-12-08

ANTONIO T. DONATO v. CA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Needless to stress, "a litigation is not a game of technicalities."[34] When technicality deserts its function of being an aid to justice, the Court is justified in exempting from its operations a particular case.[35] Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, granting substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.[36]

GR No. 145982

2003-07-03

LIU v. ALFREDO LOY

CARPIO, J.

Likewise, as found by the trial court and the appellate court, there is no basis to award attorney's fees. The policy of the law is to put no premium on the right to litigate.[58] The court may award attorney's fees only in the instances mentioned in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule.[59] None of the instances mentioned in Article 2208 apply to this case.

	GR No. 188802 2011-02-14	REVELINA LIMSON v. WACK WACK CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION CARPIO MORALES, J.
In a multi-occupancy dwelling such as Apartments, limitations are imposed under R.A. 4726[9] in accordance with the common interest and safety of the occupants therein which at times may curtail the exercise of ownership. To maintain safe, harmonious and secured living conditions, certain stipulations are embodied in the duly registered deed of restrictions, in this case the Master Deed, and in house rules which the condominium corporation, like respondent, is mandated to implement. Upon acquisition of a unit, the owner not only affixes his conformity to the sale; he also binds himself to a contract with other unit owners.[10]
	GR No. 183788 2010-04-05	KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI v. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Here, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping was signed by petitioner's counsel. Upon receipt of the resolution of the Court of Appeals dismissing her petition for non-compliance with the rules, petitioner submitted, together with her motion for reconsideration, a verification and certification signed by her in compliance with the said rule. [40] We deem this to be sufficient compliance especially in view of the merits of the case, which may be considered as a special circumstance or a compelling reason that would justify tempering the hard consequence of the procedural requirement on non-forum shopping. [41]
	GR No. 154270 2010-03-09	TEOFISTO OÑO v. VICENTE N. LIM BERSAMIN, J.
The Court cannot anymore review the evaluation and appreciation of the evidence, because the Court is not a trier of facts.[21] Although this rule admits of certain exceptions, viz: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjecture; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (3) where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and the findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and, (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record,[22] it does not appear now that any of the exceptions is present herein. We thus apply the rule without hesitation, and reject the appeal for that reason.
	GR No. 172671 2009-04-16	MARISSA R. UNCHUAN v. ANTONIO J.P. LOZADA QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner, likewise, calls on the Court to ascertain Peregrina's physical ability to execute the Deed of Sale on March 11, 1994. This essentially necessitates a calibration of facts, which is not the function of this Court.[29] Nevertheless, we have sifted through the Decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals but found no reason to overturn their factual findings. Both the trial court and appellate court noted the lack of substantial evidence to establish total impossibility for Peregrina to execute the Deed of Sale.
	GR No. 167560 2008-09-17	CIR v. DOMINADOR MENGUITO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As a general rule, the Court does not venture into a trial of facts in proceedings under Rule 45 of the Rules of Courts, for its only function is to review errors of law.[26] The Court declines to inquire into errors in the factual assessment of the CA, for the latter's findings are conclusive, especially when these are synonymous to those of the CTA.[27] But when the CA contradicts the factual findings of the CTA, the Court deems it necessary to determine whether the CA was justified in doing so, for one basic rule in taxation is that the factual findings of the CTA, when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is shown that the CTA committed gross error in its appreciation of facts.[28]
	GR NO. 158328 2007-02-23	FRANCO ESGUERRA v. ALFONSO MANANTAN QUISUMBING, J.
Notwithstanding, petitioner's right to possess and claim of ownership over Lot No. 661 are substantiated, contrary to the findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals. This Court is not a trier of facts and not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below, unless there is a misapprehension of facts or failure to consider certain relevant facts which, if properly taken into account, will justify a different conclusion.[20]
	GR No. 144435 2007-02-06	GUILLERMINA BALUYUT v. EULOGIO POBLETE AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner admits that the issue regarding the date of maturity of the loan which she incurred from the Poblete spouses was first brought up only in her Addendum to the Motion for Reconsideration filed before the CA. In an effort to clothe her argument with merit, petitioner contends that the CA should have properly considered this issue in the interest of justice and equity. The Court is not persuaded. It is settled that an issue not raised during trial could not be raised for the first time on appeal as to do so would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process.[12] Contrary to petitioner's contention, it would be the height of injustice if the CA allowed her to raise an issue at a very late stage of the proceedings. It would be unfair to the adverse party who would have no opportunity to present evidence in contra to the new theory, which it could have done had it been aware of it at the time of the hearing before the trial court.[13] It is true that this rule admits of exceptions as in cases of lack of jurisdiction, where the lower court committed plain error, where there are jurisprudential developments affecting the issues, or when the issues raised present a matter of public policy.[14] However, the Court finds that none of these exceptions are present in the instant case.
	GR NO. 163707 2006-09-15	MICHAEL C. GUY v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Rule 7, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that the certification of non-forum shopping should be executed by the plaintiff or the principal party. Failure to comply with the requirement shall be cause for dismissal of the case. However, a liberal application of the rules is proper where the higher interest of justice would be served. In Sy Chin v. Court of Appeals,[11] we ruled that while a petition may have been flawed where the certificate of non-forum shopping was signed only by counsel and not by the party, this procedural lapse may be overlooked in the interest of substantial justice.[12] So it is in the present controversy where the merits[13] of the case and the absence of an intention to violate the rules with impunity should be considered as compelling reasons to temper the strict application of the rules.
	GR No. 154645 2004-07-13	MILAGROS JOAQUINO v. REYES PANGANIBAN, J.
The above issue, which is clearly factual, has been passed upon by both the trial and the appellate courts, with similar results in favor of respondents. Such finding is generally conclusive; it is not the function of this Court to review questions of fact. [20]
	GR No. 129638 2003-12-08	ANTONIO T. DONATO v. CA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Needless to stress, "a litigation is not a game of technicalities."[34] When technicality deserts its function of being an aid to justice, the Court is justified in exempting from its operations a particular case.[35] Technical rules of procedure should be used to promote, not frustrate justice. While the swift unclogging of court dockets is a laudable objective, granting substantial justice is an even more urgent ideal.[36]
	GR No. 145982 2003-07-03	LIU v. ALFREDO LOY CARPIO, J.
Likewise, as found by the trial court and the appellate court, there is no basis to award attorney's fees. The policy of the law is to put no premium on the right to litigate.[58] The court may award attorney's fees only in the instances mentioned in Article 2208 of the Civil Code. The award of attorney's fees is the exception rather than the rule.[59] None of the instances mentioned in Article 2208 apply to this case.

TWIN TOWERS CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION v. CA