Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAXWELL HEAVY EQUIPMENT CORPORATION v. ERIC UYCHIAOCO YU

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192150 2014-10-01	FEDERICO SABAY v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
On the claim of self-defense, we recognize that the factual findings and conclusions of the RTC, especially when affirmed by the CA as in this case, are entitled to great weight and respect and are deemed final and conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record.[26]
	GR No. 170462 2014-02-05	RODOLFO GUEVARRA v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
The petitioners fail to convince us that we should review the findings of fact in this case. Factual findings of the RTC, when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court and are deemed final and conclusive when supported by the evidence on record.[25] We find that both the RTC and the CA fully considered the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, and they have adequately explained the legal and evidentiary reasons in concluding that the petitioners are guilty of the crimes of frustrated homicide and homicide.
	GR No. 175851 2012-07-04	EMILIA LIM v. MINDANAO WINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
Lastly, we see no reason to disturb the ruling of the CA anent Emilia's civil liability. As may be recalled, the CA affirmed the lower courts' factual findings on the matter. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, will not be disturbed.[32] Also, "[i]t is a settled rule that in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of [Court], only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court."[33] Moreover, "it is well to remember that a check may be evidence of indebtedness. A check, the entries of which are in writing, could prove a loan transaction."[34] While Emilia is acquitted of violations of BP 22, she should nevertheless pay the debt she owes.
	GR No. 184528 2012-04-25	NILO OROPESA v. CIRILO OROPESA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
It is axiomatic that, as a general rule, "only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts."[20] We only take cognizance of questions of fact in certain exceptional circumstances;[21] however, we find them to be absent in the instant case. It is also long settled that "factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, will not be disturbed by this Court. As a rule, such findings by the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect, and are deemed final and conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record."[22] We therefore adopt the factual findings of the lower court and the Court of Appeals and rule that the grant of respondent's demurrer to evidence was proper under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar.