Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 179880 2009-01-19	ROBERTO TOTANES v. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION NACHURA, J.
We reiterate the well-established principle that factual findings of the trial court are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court - and they carry even more weight when the CA affirms these findings, as in the present case. We are not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[15]
	GR No. 155856 2004-05-28	LEONORA CEBALLOS v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF LATE EMIGDIO MERCADO PANGANIBAN, J.
Her contention has no merit. Well-entrenched is the rule that the Supreme Court's role in a petition under Rule 45 is limited to reviewing or reversing errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court. Factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive on the parties. Since such findings are generally not reviewable by this Court,[9] it is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[10]
	GR No. 148332 2003-09-30	NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. MADRIGAL WAN HAI LINES CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We see no reason to disturb the factual findings of both the trial court and Court of Appeals which petitioner does not dispute. Absent any showing that such findings were reached arbitrarily or without sufficient basis, the same must be respected and binding upon us.[57]