This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-03-26 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be pointed out that it is clear from petitioner's assignment of errors that what the instant petition for review is challenging are the findings of fact and the appreciation of evidence made by the trial court which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[7] While it is well-settled that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, it is equally well-settled that the rule admits of exceptions,[8] one of which is when the trial court or the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. [9] In this case, the records contain evidence which justify the application of the exception. | |||||
|
2011-04-04 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| necessarily fatal.[55] In Delsan Transport Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[56] we ruled that: Anent the second issue, it is our view and so hold that the presentation in evidence of the marine insurance policy is not indispensable in this case before the insurer may recover from the common carrier the insured value of the lost cargo in the exercise of its subrogatory right. The subrogation receipt, by itself, is sufficient to establish not only the relationship of herein private respondent as insurer and Caltex, as the assured shipper of the lost cargo of industrial fuel oil, but also the amount paid to settle the insurance claim. The right of subrogation accrues simply upon payment by the insurance company of the insurance claim. | |||||