This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-04-21 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Both parties concede that this issue is factual. It is a basic rule that factual issues are beyond the province of this Court in a petition for review, for it is not our function to review evidence all over again.[17] Rule 45 of the Rules of Court provides that only questions of law may be raised in this Court in a petition for review on certiorari.[18] The reason is that the Court is not a trier of facts.[19] However, the rule is subject to several exceptions.[20] Under these exceptions, the Court may delve into and resolve factual issues, such as in cases where the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are absurd, contrary to the evidence on record, impossible, capricious or arbitrary, or based on a misappreciation of facts. | |||||
|
2004-03-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| function of the Court to evaluate the evidence all over again.[15] By assailing the two orders of the trial court denying its motion for new trial or reconsideration, petitioner is collaterally impugning the main decision of the trial court rendered on December 20, 1999. But the said decision has already attained finality when Datu failed to | |||||