This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-07-28 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| With regard to the first issue, it is well-settled that this Court is not a trier of facts. This Court accords due respect to the findings of the trial court and the appellate court save in clearly exceptional cases.[12] This case, however, does not fall within those exceptions. The trial court clearly has the discretion on whether to grant or deny a motion to postpone and/or reschedule the pretrial conference in accordance with the circumstances then obtaining in the case.[13] This must be so as it is the trial court which was able to witness firsthand the events as they unfolded in the trial of a case. Postponements, while permissible, must not be countenanced except for clearly meritorious grounds and in light of the attendant circumstances.[14] The trial court's discretion on this matter, however, is not unbridled. The trial courts are well advised to reasonably and wisely exercise such discretion. This Court will not hesitate to strike down clearly arbitrary acts or orders of the lower court. This, however, is not the situation in this case. While it is true that private respondent Equitable and inclement weather have on occasion caused the postponement of the pretrial conference, the repeated resetting of the pretrial conference was primarily due to the petitioner. | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We have consistently ruled that findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding on this Court.[11] | |||||