This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-11-11 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| The CA in its Decision[26] dated October 18, 2006 reversed the trial court and ruled in favor of respondent in holding that the latter already fulfilled his loan obligation with petitioner. The CA found credence in the following pieces of evidence: (1) certification dated September 10, 1996 signed by Dy; (2) deduction of the monthly installments from respondent's salary pursuant to the agreement between him and petitioner; and (3) petitioner's admission of respondent's installment payments made in the amount of P230,275.22.[27] The CA held that Dy never denied nor confirmed in open court the authenticity of her signature in the certification dated September 10, 1996.[28] Citing Permanent Savings and Loan Bank v. Velarde[29] and Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (SOLIDBANK) v. Del Monte Motor Works, Inc.,[30] the CA held that Dy must declare under oath that she did not sign the document or that it is otherwise false or fabricated.[31] | |||||
|
2015-01-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The effect of admission of the genuineness and due execution of a document means that the party whose signature it bears admits that he voluntarily signed the document or it was signed by another for him and with his authority.[81] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In addition, the issue regarding the date of maturity of the loan is factual and settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[15] It is not the function of this Court to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[16] While there are also exceptions to this rule such as when the factual findings of the trial court and the CA are contradictory; when the inference made by the CA is manifestly mistaken or absurd; when the judgment of the CA is premised on its misapprehension of facts; and, when the CA failed to resolve relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a modification or reversal of the decision of the appellate court,[17] this Court finds that the present case does not fall under any of these exceptions. | |||||
|
2005-09-21 |
|||||
| While respondent is correct in stating that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as "the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts"; and that it is not the Court's function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented,[13] said rules, however, admit certain exceptions such as:(a) where there is grave abuse of discretion; (b) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (c) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (d) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the factual findings are conflicting; (f) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) 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, (h) where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court, or are mere conclusions without citation of specific evidence, or where the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent, or where the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[14] (Emphasis supplied). | |||||
|
2005-08-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case of Permanent Savings and Loan Bank v. Mariano Velarde,[25] this Court held that | |||||
|
2005-08-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On the objection of ALI owing to the lack of signature of the deponent, it should be noted that a deposition not signed does not preclude its use during the trial. A deponent's signature to the deposition is not in all events indispensable since the presence of signature goes primarily to the form of deposition. The requirement that the deposition must be examined and signed by the witness is only to ensure that the deponent is afforded the opportunity to correct any errors contained therein and to ensure its accuracy.[40] In any event, the admissibility of the deposition does not preclude the determination of its probative value at the appropriate time. The admissibility of evidence should not be equated with weight of evidence. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.[41] | |||||
|
2005-07-29 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In the case of Permanent Savings and Loan Bank v. Mariano Velarde,[25] this Court held that - | |||||