This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The petitioners must be reminded that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. It is not our function to review, examine and evaluate or weigh the probative value of the evidence presented. A question of fact would arise in such event. Questions of fact cannot be raised in an appeal via certiorari before the Supreme Court and are not proper for its consideration.[43] | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| To begin, we have to point out that whether petitioner was negligent or not is a question of fact which is generally not proper in a petition for review, and when this determination is supported by substantial evidence, it becomes conclusive and binding on this Court.[8] However, there is an exception, that is, when the findings of the Court of Appeals are incongruent with the findings of the lower court.[9] In our view, the exception finds application in the present case. | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We find the petition without merit. The issues raised are factual.[7] In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[8] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewed by this Court,[9] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[10] | |||||
|
2001-10-17 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We deny the petition. The issues raised are factual. In an appeal via certiorari, we may not review the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[15] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by the Court,[16] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions to the rule.[17] | |||||