Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. MAXICORP

This case has been cited 29 times or more.

	GR No. 161106 2014-01-13	WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
In the issuance of a search warrant, probable cause requires "such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched."[42]
	GR No. 188526 2013-11-11	CENTURY CHINESE MEDICINE CO. v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
A core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a probable cause, meaning "the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched."[26] And when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data or information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present. Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary.[27] The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[28] As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man,[29] not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.[30]
	GR No. 187268 2013-09-04	JOVITO C. PLAMERAS v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
There is a question of law if the issue raised is capable of being resolved without need of reviewing the probative value of the evidence. The issue to be resolved must be limited to determining what the law is on a certain set of facts. Once the issue invites a review of the evidence, the question posed is one of fact.[39]
	GR No. 193089 2012-07-09	ROSENA FONTELAR OGAWA v. ELIZABETH GACHE MENIGISHI PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
At the outset, it should be emphasized that the factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon the Court and may not be reviewed on appeal. However, when the RTC and the CA differ in their findings of fact and conclusions, as in this case, it becomes imperative to digress from this general rule and revisit the factual circumstances surrounding the controversy.[7]
	GR No. 155996 2012-06-27	PCGG CHAIRMAN MAGDANGAL B. ELMA v. REINER JACOBI BRION, J.
No definitive basis to determine probable cause has been established, except to consider the attendant facts and circumstances according to the prosecutor's best lights.[133] No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists. Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation.[134] In going through the process, the prosecutor should carefully calibrate the issues of facts presented to him to the end that his finding would always be consistent with the clear dictates of reason.[135]
	GR No. 180784 2012-02-15	INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. ASIAN TERMINALS PERALTA, J.
Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.[20] explains the difference between questions of law and questions of fact, thus: The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is settled. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Though this delineation seems simple, determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometimes problematic. For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases where the facts are not in dispute automatically involve purely questions of law.
	GR No. 194128 2011-12-07	WESTMONT INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. AMOS P. FRANCIA MENDOZA, J.
As a rule, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers only questions of law. Questions of fact are not reviewable and cannot be passed upon by this Court in the exercise of its power to review. The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is established. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact, on the other hand, exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[31] This being so, the findings of fact of the CA are final and conclusive and this Court will not review them on appeal.
	GR No. 175021 2011-06-15	REPUBLIC v. THI THU THUY T. DE GUZMAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In this case, the circumstances surrounding the controversial LBP check are central to the issue before us, the resolution of which, will require a perusal of the entire records of the case including the transcribed testimonies of the witnesses. Since this is an appeal via certiorari, questions of fact are not reviewable. As a rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive [62] and this Court will only review them under the following recognized exceptions: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on 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 same is 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 citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. [63]
	GR No. 181560 2010-11-15	VITARICH CORPORATION v. CHONA LOSIN MENDOZA, J.
As a general rule, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court covers questions of law only. Questions of fact are not reviewable and passed upon by this Court in its exercise of judicial review. The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact has been well defined. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact, on the other hand, exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[13]
	GR No. 176212 2010-10-20	CENTURY SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO T. SAMONTE AND ROSALINDA M. SAMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,[20] the Court elucidated on the distinction between questions of law and fact: The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is settled. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Though this delineation seems simple, determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometimes problematic. For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases where the facts are not in dispute automatically involve purely questions of law.
	GR No. 174570 2010-02-20	ROMER SY TAN v. SY TIONG GUE PERALTA, J.
Jurisprudence dictates that probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. Probable cause requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched.[20] In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,[21] this Court stressed that: The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.
	GR No. 157038 2009-12-23	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. JEAN E. RAOET BRION, J.
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court opens a case for review only on questions of law, not questions of fact. A question of law exists when the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain set of facts. A question of fact exists when the doubt is on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[9]
	GR No. 162095 2009-10-12	IBEX INTERNATIONAL v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM CARPIO, J.
At the outset, we note that IBEX is raising factual issues. A petition for review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court should cover only questions of law.[18] A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts.[19] A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.[20] We note that matters pertaining to the takeover, completion and delivery of the project are factual issues which had been exhaustively discussed and ruled upon by the CIAC.
	GR No. 156654 2008-11-20	PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. VICENTE LOPEZ QUISUMBING, J.
A perusal of the aforesaid issues readily shows that the same are questions of facts since its resolution would entail a re-evaluation of the evidence presented before the trial court.[20] Thus, we could not take cognizance of such issues considering the settled rule that our review under Rule 45 is confined to questions of law. It is true that there are several exceptions[21] to the said rule; however, none finds application in this case.
	GR No. 165550 2008-10-08	STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
With respect to the procedural issue, we agree with respondent that the issues raised by the bank are essentially questions of fact that cannot be the subject of this petition for review on certiorari. Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be raised on appeal by certiorari. Well-settled in our jurisprudence is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts and that it is neither the function of this Court to analyze or weigh the evidence of the parties all over again.[14] The ruling in Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.[15] elucidates the distinction of a question of law and a question of fact as follows:... A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.
	GR No. 170049 2008-03-14	GENEROSO A. JUABAN and FRANCIS M. ZOSA v. RENE ESPINA and CEBU DISCOVERY BAY PROPERTIES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We have held in Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.[18] and Morales v. Skills International Company,[19] that:The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is settled. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Though this delineation seems simple, determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometime problematic. For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases where the facts are not in dispute automatically involve purely questions of law.
	GR No. 174414 2008-03-14	ELMER F. GOMEZ v. MA. LITA A. MONTALBAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Simple as it may seem, determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometimes complicated. In a case involving a "question of law," the resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. If the query requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their relation to each other, the issue in that query is factual.[17]
	GR No. 171184 2008-03-04	BENJAMIN P. QUITORIANO for himself and in behalf of the other successors-in-interest of the intestate estate of the late NICOLAS QUITORIANO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD and EDUARDO AGLIBOT 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.
	GR No. 157573 2008-02-11	Elinel Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the Philippines AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court finds it untenable. Although the general rule is that a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court should cover only questions of law[29] and questions of fact are not reviewable,[30] the same is subject to exceptions among which is when the findings of the appellate court conflict with the findings of the trial court, as in the present case.[31] The Court is not persuaded by petitioner's contention that in all its pleadings, respondent never disputed petitioner's claim that MCEC was the one which purchased the property in question. Records show that in respondent's Complaint[32] as well as in its Position Paper[33] respondent has consistently asserted ownership of the disputed property; and to buttress such claim it presented in evidence the Deed of Absolute Sale[34] as well as the Transfer Certificate of Title[35] over the said property. The Deed of Absolute Sale is a direct refutation of petitioner's contention that it was MCEC which purchased the disputed property.
	GR No. 172775 2007-12-19	NE CHAN v. A MOTOR CO. CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is likewise well to reiterate here that "probable cause," as far as the issuance of a search warrant is concerned, has been uniformly defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonable, discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.[24] Equally important is our declaration in Microsoft Corporation and Lotus Development Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.[25] that
	GR NO. 157439 2007-07-04	MULTI-VENTURES CAPITAL v. STALWART MANAGEMENT SERVICES CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Ordinarily, the Court will not dwell on the issues raised in this petition as it pertains to questions of fact, and under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, the reason being that this Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not for this Court to re-examine and re-evaluate the evidence on record.[6] Considering, however, that the CA and the RTC came up with divergent findings regarding the real nature of the transaction in question, the Court is now constrained to review the evidence on record so as to resolve the conflict.[7]
	GR NO. 168306 2007-06-19	WILLIAM C. YAO v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The facts and circumstances being referred thereto pertain to facts, data or information personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present.[27] The applicant or his witnesses must have personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense being complained of. "Reliable information" is insufficient. Mere affidavits are not enough, and the judge must depose in writing the complainant and his witnesses.[28]
	GR NO. 158762 2007-04-03	SILVANO B. GAJE v. PATRICIA S. VDA. DE DALISAY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The issues beg a review of the evidence presented by the parties, despite the finding of the Court of Appeals that no error was committed by the trial court in appreciating the evidence established during the trial; hence, it is clearly a question of fact. "Such questions as whether certain items of evidence should be accorded probative value or weight, or rejected as feeble or spurious, or whether or not the proofs on one side or the other are clear and convincing and adequate to establish a proposition in issue, are without doubt questions of fact."[21] The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings on these matters are received with respect and are in fact generally binding on this Court.[22] A question of law which the court may pass upon must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants.[23]
	GR NO. 170815 2007-02-02	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. PRISCILLA LAZARO-BALDAZO GARCIA, J.
It is readily noticeable from the lone error assigned by the petitioner that the present recourse raises factual issues which necessarily require this Court to revisit the evidence presented during the investigation process. There is nothing more settled in this jurisdiction than the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts, and that only questions of law may be entertained by the Court in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Questions of fact are not reviewable (Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp., Inc.[4]). The question of whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that there was falsification of public documents in the instant case is definitely a factual issue which requires a review of the pieces of evidence presented by the parties. There is nothing on record before the Court to show that the CA committed grave reversible error in its factual review of the Ombudsman's decision. On this score alone, the petition should be dismissed outright.
	GR NO. 149285 2006-08-30	GODOFREDO MORALES v. SKILLS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The distinction between a question of law and a question of fact was comprehensively discussed in the case of Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,[25] thus:The distinction between questions of law and questions of fact is settled. A question of law exists when the doubt or difference centers on what the law is on a certain state of facts. A question of fact exists if the doubt centers on the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. Though this delineation seems simple, determining the true nature and extent of the distinction is sometimes problematic. For example, it is incorrect to presume that all cases where the facts are not in dispute automatically involve purely questions of law.
	GR NO. 152950 2006-08-03	PEOPLE v. CHRISTOPHER CHOI CORONA, J.
The determination of probable cause does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits. As the term implies, probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral certainty. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial.[28] No law or rule states that probable cause requires a specific kind of evidence. No formula or fixed rule for its determination exists.[29] Probable cause is determined in the light of conditions obtaining in a given situation.[30] The entirety of the questions propounded by the court and the answers thereto must be considered by the judge.[31]
	GR NO. 150877 2006-05-04	ELIDAD KHO v. ENRICO LANZANAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
What constitutes "probable cause" is well settled. In Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc.,[47] we defined probable cause as follows:Probable cause means "such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper." Thus, probable cause for a search warrant requires such facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be searched.
	GR NO. 148273 2006-04-19	MILAGROS SIMON v. GUIA W. CANLAS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Anent respondent's submission that the petition failed to raise a question of law, the Court disagrees. For a question to be one of law, it must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.[38] Petitioners' contention that they were denied substantive due process is a pure question of law.[39]
	GR NO. 143169 2005-01-21	JIMMY ANG v. ELEANOR R. LUCERO CARPIO, J.
In a preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor merely determines whether there is probable cause or sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.[13] It does not call for the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction requires after trial on the merits.[14] As implied by the words themselves, "probable cause" is concerned with probability, not absolute or moral certainty.[15] The complainant need not present at this stage proof beyond reasonable doubt. A preliminary investigation does not require a full and exhaustive presentation of the parties' evidence.[16]