This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-03-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Even on the merits, the Court finds no substantial reason to reverse the RTC's decision finding petitioner liable solidarily with Looyuko to the Bank. There was no denying that he had signed the promissory notes as a co-maker and that he executed a Surety Agreement. Petitioner argues that the parties had actually intended their liabilities to be joint and that he has evidence to prove that his liability was less than what the RTC declared him liable for. Petitioner's liability is largely a factual assessment that has been thoroughly and extensively passed upon by the RTC and should not be disturbed on appeal.[15] | |||||
|
2006-02-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The general rule is that only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by the Court in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[38] In an appeal via certiorari, the Court may not review the factual findings of the CA.[39] It is not the Court's function under Rule 45 to review, examine, and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented.[40] However, the Court may review findings of facts in some instances, such as, when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court or quasi-judicial agency, or when the findings of facts of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[41] The Court finds these instances present in this case. | |||||
|
2005-12-14 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| (i) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals was based on a misapprehension of facts; (ii) when the factual findings are conflicting; (iii) 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 (iv) 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.[15] Said exceptions obtain in this case thus, a departure from the application of the general rule is warranted. | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| As a rule, our jurisdiction in cases brought from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court. This is because its findings of fact are deemed conclusive and we are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[9] | |||||