This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-12-04 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Similarly, in Asia Trust Development v. Concept Trading Corporation,[62] the Court, given that the principal obligation had been partially complied with by the respondent, affirmed the reduction of the penalty charges from 36% to 3% per annum. The Court, in Filinvest v. Court of Appeals,[63] deemed that the penalty of P15,000.00 per day, resulting in the aggregate amount of P3,990,000.00, was steep and excessive, and reduced it to P1,881,867.66, considering that there had been substantial compliance in good faith on the part of the party obliged to pay penalty. | |||||
|
2004-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The petitioners question the findings of the Court of Appeals as to whether the payment of the petitioners' obligation to the private respondent was properly made, thus, extinguishing the same. This is clearly a factual issue, and beyond the purview of the Court to delve into. This is in consonance with the well-settled rule that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded the highest degree of respect, and generally will not be disturbed on appeal. Such findings are binding and conclusive on the Court.[17] Furthermore, it is not the Court's function under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[18] | |||||