This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have consistently declared that factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal[9] as this Court is not a trier of facts.[10] It is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again, subject to certain exceptions,[11] none of which is present in this case. As we said in Zaragoza vs. Nobleza:[12] | |||||
|
2008-03-07 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, when adopted and confirmed by the CA and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.[22] The existence of an employer-employee relationship is a factual matter that will not be delved into by this Court, since only questions of law may be raised in petitions for review.[23] The Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule, such as: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the CA went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. [24] None of these exceptions, however, has been convincingly shown by petitioners to apply in the present case. | |||||
|
2007-02-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Whether or not demand was made is a question of fact. In petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[20] Factual findings of the trial court, when adopted and confirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive on this Court and will generally not be reviewed on appeal.[21] Inquiry into the veracity of the CA's factual findings and conclusions is not the function of the Supreme Court for the Court is not a trier of facts.[22] Neither is it our function to re-examine and weigh anew the respective evidence of the parties.[23] While this Court has recognized several exceptions to this rule,[24] none of these exceptions finds application here. | |||||
|
2006-07-14 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| this Court.[7] Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the SSC, when adopted and confirmed by the CA and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.[8] While this Court has recognized several exceptions[9] to this rule, none of these exceptions finds application here. Both the SSC and CA found that Fermin was petitioner's employee. Thus, petitioner is liable for unpaid social security contributions. | |||||
|
2004-07-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Moreover, we note that the issue concerning the applicability of Articles 19 and 21 was not raised by petitioner in the trial court or even in the CA. Hence, she should not be permitted to raise it now. Basic is the rule that parties may not bring up on appeal issues that have not been raised on trial.[52] | |||||