This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Ramos v. Court of Appeals,[85] the Court found the expert witness, who is a pulmonologist, not qualified to testify on the field of anesthesiology. Similarly, in Cereno v. Court of Appeals,[86] a 2012 case involving medical negligence, the Court excluded the testimony of an expert witness whose specialty was anesthesiology, and concluded that an anesthesiologist cannot be considered an expert in the field of surgery or even in surgical practices and diagnosis. | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The general rule is that this Court in petitions for review on certiorari only concerns itself with questions of law, not of fact,[41] the resolution of factual issues being the primary function of lower courts.[42] However, several exceptions have been laid down by jurisprudence to allow the scrutiny of the factual arguments advanced by the contending parties, viz: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[43] At the very least, therefore, the inconsonance of the findings of the RTC and the CA regarding the existence of the loan sanctions the recalibration of the evidence presented by the parties before the trial court. | |||||