This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-01-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The issue raised by petitioner is essentially factual in nature, the determination of which is best left to the courts below. Well settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[23] The function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.[24] As a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of trial courts, more so, when as here, such findings are undisturbed by the appellate court.[25] Stated otherwise, the Court refrains from further scrutiny of factual findings of trial courts, more so when those findings are affirmed by the CA. To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which is not meant to be. Certainly the rule admits exceptions[26] none, however, is applicable to the case at bar. Absent any application of any of the recognized exceptions, this Court is bound by the findings of fact by the lower courts.[27] | |||||
|
2010-07-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[11] | |||||