This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2008-02-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The issue raises a factual question. The Court is not a trier of facts, its jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts.[9] As a rule, the findings of fact of the trial court when affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal by this Court, as long as they are borne out by the record or are based on substantial evidence.[10] Such rule however is not absolute, but is subject to well-established exceptions, which are: 1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; 3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; 4) when the judgment of the CA is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; 6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and those findings are contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; 7) when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; 8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and 10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[11] We hold that this case falls under exception Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 9 which constrain us to resolve the factual issue. | |||||
|
2006-09-27 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| In civil cases, the burden of proof to be established by a preponderance of evidence is on the party who is asserting the affirmative of an issue.[15] Preponderance of evidence means probability of truth. It is evidence that is more convincing to the court as worthy of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.[16] | |||||
|
2006-03-06 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The legal aphorism is that the factual findings of the trial court, its evaluation of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of their probative weight are given respect if not conclusive effect unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted certain facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.[8] Here, we meticulously reviewed the records of the case and found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the trial court. Moreover, the CA affirmed these findings on appeal. It is well-settled that the factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal to us.[9] The Court is not a trier of facts hence, as a rule, we do not weigh anew the evidence already passed on by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals. | |||||
|
2005-08-11 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is doctrinally settled that where the trial court's factual findings are adopted and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case, the same are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed by this Court.[5] It bears emphasis that in the appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court accords due deference to the trial court's factual findings because the latter had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses when they testified during the trial and, therefore, is in a better position to determine their credibility.[6] Thus, we find no compelling reason to overturn the factual findings and conclusion of law by the Court of Appeals relative to the first and second issues. | |||||
|
2005-01-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| The rule is that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari; and that the factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive on this Court.[3] However, there are exceptions, such as when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court,[4] as in this case. | |||||
|
2004-11-19 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Indeed, this Court has held that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. However, there are several exceptions to the rule, namely: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) 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 (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. [28] | |||||
|
2004-11-12 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| "In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies, the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which they are testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility so far as the same legitimately appear upon the trial. The court may also consider the number of witnesses, though the preponderance is not necessarily with the greater number."[4] | |||||