Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BAN HUA UY FLORES v. JOHNNY K. H. UY

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 163269 2006-04-19	ROLANDO C. RIVERA v. PROMULGATED: SOLIDBANK CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is settled that actual damages or compensatory damages may be awarded for breach of contracts. Actual damages are primarily intended to simply make good or replace the loss covered by said breach.[67] They cannot be presumed. Even if petitioner had admitted to having breached the Undertaking, respondent must still prove that it suffered damages and the amount thereof.[68] In determining the amount of actual damages, the Court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable regarding the actual amount of losses.[69] The benefit to be derived from a contract which one of the parties has absolutely failed to perform is of necessity to some extent a matter of speculation of the injured party.
	GR NO. 152720 2005-02-17	SOLIDBANK CORPORATION v. SPS. TEODULFO AND CARMEN ARRIETA PANGANIBAN, J.
Unanimity of the CA and the trial court in their factual ascertainment of this point bars us from supplanting their finding and substituting it with our own. Settled is the doctrine that the factual determinations of the lower courts are conclusive and binding upon this Court.[14] Verily, the review of cases brought before the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals is limited to errors of law.[15] None of the recognized exceptions to this principle has been shown to exist.
	GR No. 149750 2003-06-16	AURORA ALCANTARA-DAUS v. SPS. HERMOSO AND SOCORRO DE LEON PANGANIBAN, J.
The CA ruled that the signature of Hermoso de Leon on the Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim was forged. However, this factual finding is in conflict with that of the RTC. While normally this Court does not review factual issues,[21] this rule does not apply when there is a conflict between the holdings of the CA and those of the trial court,[22] as in the present case.
	GR No. 149679 2003-05-30	HEIRS OF CLEMENTE ERMAC v. ERMAC PANGANIBAN, J.
We are not persuaded. The credence given to the testimony of the witnesses for respondents is a factual issue already passed upon and resolved by the trial and the appellate courts. It is a hornbook doctrine that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The trial court's findings of fact, which the CA affirmed, are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court.[19]
	GR No. 115324 2003-02-19	PRODUCERS BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review filed with this Court. The Court has repeatedly held that it is not its function to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence presented by the parties during trial.[24] The Court's jurisdiction is in principle limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals.[25] Moreover, factual findings of courts, when adopted and confirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive on this Court unless these findings are not supported by the evidence on record.[26] There is no showing of any misapprehension of facts on the part of the Court of Appeals in the case at bar that would require this Court to review and overturn the factual findings of that court, especially since the conclusions of fact of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are not only consistent but are also amply supported by the evidence on record.