Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PKS SHIPPING COMPANY

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 184300 2012-07-11	MALAYAN INSURANCE CO. v. PHILIPPINES FIRST INSURANCE CO. REYES, J.
The Court agrees with the RTC and CA that Reputable is a private carrier. The issue of whether a carrier is private or common on the basis of facts found by a trial court and/or the appelle court can be valid and reviewable question of law.[18] In this case , the conclusion derived by both the RTC and the CA that Reputable is a private carrier finds sufficient basis, not only from the facts on record, but also from prevailing law and jurisprudence.
	GR NO. 157481 2006-01-24	LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO. v. PIONEER ASIA INSURANCE CORP. QUISUMBING, J.
Prefatorily, we stress that the finding of fact by the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is not reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari. However, the conclusions derived from such factual finding are not necessarily pure issues of fact when they are inextricably intertwined with the determination of a legal issue. In such instances, the conclusions made may be raised in a petition for review before this Court.[10]
	GR NO. 141715 2005-10-12	LOCAL SUPERIOR OF SERVANTS OF CHARITY v. JODY KING CONSTRUCTION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We realize that there are well established exceptions to the rule that findings of fact of the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. These are: (1) when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are contradictory; (2) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; (3) when the inference made by the Court of Appeals from its findings of fact is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (4) when there is a grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts; (5) when the Appellate Court, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and such findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is premised on a misapprehension of facts; (7) when the Court of Appeals failed to notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the findings of fact are themselves conflicting; (9) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[8] In this case, none of the exceptions is present which would warrant a review of the factual findings of the courts below.