This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-04-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court stresses that it accords respect to the factual findings of the trial court and, unless it overlooked substantial matters that would alter the outcome of the case, this Court will not disturb such findings.[8] We meticulously reviewed the records of the case and found no reason to deviate from the rule. Moreover, since the CA affirmed these findings on appeal, they are final and conclusive on us.[9] We therefore sustain the RTC's and CA's findings that petitioner was indeed negligent and responsible for respondents' lost check. | |||||
|
2005-08-16 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The findings of the courts below that (1) Gregorio donated to petitioner the subject lot; (2) the Deed of Absolute Sale is void; and (3) Gregorio's only property is the said lot - are all factual in nature which are not within the domain of this Court for it is not a trier of facts.[4] Basic is it that findings of fact by the trial court, especially when affirmed on appeal, as in this case, are conclusive and binding upon this Court. [5] | |||||
|
2004-12-13 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, it is now well-settled that findings of facts of the appellate court sustaining those of the trial court are binding upon this Court.[17] Although this rule accepts of certain exceptions,[18] the petitioners have failed to convince us that the case at bar falls within any of them. We, therefore, see no reason to depart from the findings of the trial court that, indeed, the signatures of Librada Salinas on the questioned documents are forged and that private respondent Aurelia Mercado erroneously relied on the misrepresentations of her late brother, Moises Bentulan, when she signed the same. | |||||