Lawyerly

GR No. 170375

2010-07-07

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The Court has held in a long line of cases that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is settled that as a rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals especially those affirming the trial court are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court. The exceptions to this rule are: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) 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; (g) where 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 (h) 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 absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record.[83] None of these exceptions exists in the Petitions at bar.

GR No. 155639

2009-04-22

JANUARIA A. RIVERA v. UNITED LABORATORIES

BRION, J.

While it admits that the Court has laid down several exceptions to the rule that only questions of law shall be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45,[39] the exceptions, however, presuppose that findings of fact have been made by the CA, the trial courts or the administrative agencies. UNILAB points out that in this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA have not made any findings of fact on the matters alleged by Rivera. UNILAB prays that the petition be denied for lack of merit and the decision dated January 29, 1999, be affirmed.

GR No. 171729

2008-07-28

PEOPLE v. RICARDO BOHOL Y CABRINO

QUISUMBING, J.

Moreover, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The settled rule is that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is entitled to the highest respect because such court has the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and manner of testifying and thus, is in a better position to assess their credibility.[17]

GR No. 179712

2008-06-27

PEOPLE v. EFREN MAGLENTE Y CERVANTES

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The victim's brief but candid and straightforward narration of how she was raped by her father bears the earmarks of credibility. Her testimony though simple, remained consistent and firm in her denunciation of the accused, her very own father, who habitually raped her in a span of many years. Her poor recollection of some minor particulars may even be due to her conscious attempt to erase all memories of her dreadful experiences in the hands of her father. It is possible that she was already resigned to just suffer in silence. It is only due to an unhidden truth (pregnancy) that she was forced to reveal the history of sexual abuse committed on her by her father.[41] There is no compelling reason to doubt the veracity of and deviate from the findings of the trial court. The findings of a trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are accorded with great weight.[42] Thus, the same should be deemed conclusive and binding on this Court.

GR No. 170563

2006-12-20

SPS. PEDRO AND PAZ SURTIDA v. RURAL BANK OF MALINAO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Indeed, the general rule is that findings of facts of the trial court will not ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths.[27] Nevertheless, the higher court is not entirely precluded from reviewing and reversing these findings if it is not convinced that they conform to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses.[28]

GR NO. 146021

2006-03-10

BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ELIZABETH G. SARMIENTO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court in light of the settled rule that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is entitled to the highest respect because such court has the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and manner of testifying and thus, is in a better position to assess their credibility.[10]

GR NO. 170563

2005-12-20

SPS. PEDRO AND PAZ SURTIDA v. RURAL BANK OF MALINAO PROMULGATED:

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Indeed, the general rule is that findings of facts of the trial court will not ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths.[27] Nevertheless, the higher court is not entirely precluded from reviewing and reversing these findings if it is not convinced that they conform to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses.[28]

GR No. 157616

2005-07-22

ISIDRO PEREZ v. CA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

More telling is the private respondents' failure to object to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage and the sale at public auction; they even pleaded to be allowed to redeem the property after it had already been sold at public auction. Patently then, the respondents were proscribed from claiming that the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage was for an amount in excess of the balance of their account and that the sale at public auction was irregular/illegal. As the Court held in Aclon v. Court of Appeals:[42]

GR No. 156940

2004-12-14

ASSOCIATED BANK v. VICENTE HENRY TAN

PANGANIBAN, J.

At the outset, we stress that the trial court's factual findings that were affirmed by the CA are not subject to review by this Court.[7] As petitioner itself takes no issue with those findings, we need only to determine the legal consequence, based on the established facts.

GR No. 124899

2004-03-30

RENATO C. SALVADOR v. CA

CARPIO, J.

While factual findings of the lower courts are generally conclusive on this Court, the rule is subject to certain exceptions, as when the findings of fact of the trial court and Court of Appeals diverge.[39]

	GR No. 170375 2010-07-07	REPUBLIC v. MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court has held in a long line of cases that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is settled that as a rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals especially those affirming the trial court are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed on appeal to the Supreme Court. The exceptions to this rule are: (a) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) 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; (g) where 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 (h) 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 absence of evidence but are contradicted by the evidence on record.[83] None of these exceptions exists in the Petitions at bar.
	GR No. 155639 2009-04-22	JANUARIA A. RIVERA v. UNITED LABORATORIES BRION, J.
While it admits that the Court has laid down several exceptions to the rule that only questions of law shall be raised in an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45,[39] the exceptions, however, presuppose that findings of fact have been made by the CA, the trial courts or the administrative agencies. UNILAB points out that in this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA have not made any findings of fact on the matters alleged by Rivera. UNILAB prays that the petition be denied for lack of merit and the decision dated January 29, 1999, be affirmed.
	GR No. 171729 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. RICARDO BOHOL Y CABRINO QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, we find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. The settled rule is that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is entitled to the highest respect because such court has the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and manner of testifying and thus, is in a better position to assess their credibility.[17]
	GR No. 179712 2008-06-27	PEOPLE v. EFREN MAGLENTE Y CERVANTES CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The victim's brief but candid and straightforward narration of how she was raped by her father bears the earmarks of credibility. Her testimony though simple, remained consistent and firm in her denunciation of the accused, her very own father, who habitually raped her in a span of many years. Her poor recollection of some minor particulars may even be due to her conscious attempt to erase all memories of her dreadful experiences in the hands of her father. It is possible that she was already resigned to just suffer in silence. It is only due to an unhidden truth (pregnancy) that she was forced to reveal the history of sexual abuse committed on her by her father.[41] There is no compelling reason to doubt the veracity of and deviate from the findings of the trial court. The findings of a trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are accorded with great weight.[42] Thus, the same should be deemed conclusive and binding on this Court.
	GR No. 170563 2006-12-20	SPS. PEDRO AND PAZ SURTIDA v. RURAL BANK OF MALINAO CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, the general rule is that findings of facts of the trial court will not ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths.[27] Nevertheless, the higher court is not entirely precluded from reviewing and reversing these findings if it is not convinced that they conform to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses.[28]
	GR NO. 146021 2006-03-10	BANK OF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. ELIZABETH G. SARMIENTO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the trial court in light of the settled rule that the evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses by the trial court is entitled to the highest respect because such court has the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and manner of testifying and thus, is in a better position to assess their credibility.[10]
	GR NO. 170563 2005-12-20	SPS. PEDRO AND PAZ SURTIDA v. RURAL BANK OF MALINAO PROMULGATED: CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, the general rule is that findings of facts of the trial court will not ordinarily be disturbed by an appellate court absent any clear showing that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight or substance which could very well affect the outcome of the case. It is the trial court that had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' manner of testifying, their furtive glances, calmness, sighs or their scant or full realization of their oaths.[27] Nevertheless, the higher court is not entirely precluded from reviewing and reversing these findings if it is not convinced that they conform to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses.[28]
	GR No. 157616 2005-07-22	ISIDRO PEREZ v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
More telling is the private respondents' failure to object to the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate mortgage and the sale at public auction; they even pleaded to be allowed to redeem the property after it had already been sold at public auction. Patently then, the respondents were proscribed from claiming that the foreclosure of the real estate mortgage was for an amount in excess of the balance of their account and that the sale at public auction was irregular/illegal. As the Court held in Aclon v. Court of Appeals:[42]
	GR No. 156940 2004-12-14	ASSOCIATED BANK v. VICENTE HENRY TAN PANGANIBAN, J.
At the outset, we stress that the trial court's factual findings that were affirmed by the CA are not subject to review by this Court.[7] As petitioner itself takes no issue with those findings, we need only to determine the legal consequence, based on the established facts.
	GR No. 124899 2004-03-30	RENATO C. SALVADOR v. CA CARPIO, J.
While factual findings of the lower courts are generally conclusive on this Court, the rule is subject to certain exceptions, as when the findings of fact of the trial court and Court of Appeals diverge.[39]

PEDRO ACLON v. CA