Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRIMO C. MIRO v. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. DE EREDEROS

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 174387 2015-12-09	BF CORPORATION v. WERDENBERG INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION JARDELEZA, J.
Petitioner raises questions of fact, which generally, we cannot entertain in a Rule 45 petition. We are not obliged to review all over again the evidence which the parties adduced in the courts below. Of course, the general rule admits of exceptions, such as where the factual findings of the CA and the trial court are conflicting or contradictory.[36] This exception is present here.
	GR No. 205681 2015-07-01	JANET CARBONELL v. JULITA A. CARBONELL-MENDES CARPIO, J.
Petitioner in this case is raising a question of fact: whether the signature of respondent was forged on the Deed of Absolute Sale, which would invalidate TCT No. T-51120 issued in the name of Spouses Carbonell. The issue raised by petitioner is clearly a question of fact which requires a review of the evidence presented. This Court is not a trier of facts,[8] and it is not its function to examine, review, or evaluate the evidence all over again.[9]
	GR No. 184130 2015-06-29	SANDRA M. CAM v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO SERENO, C.J.
Petitioner argues that since she is more credible than any of the private respondents, public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion in not giving due course to her Complaint. What she loses sight of is that mere allegation and speculation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.[55] We are not saying that uncorroborated testimony cannot stand alone. On the contrary, the Court does uphold a finding of guilt based on uncorroborated testimony if the testimony is intrinsically credible, and there is no showing that it was improperly or maliciously motivated.[56]
	GR No. 183161 2014-12-03	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. AMALIO A. MALLARI MENDOZA, J.
Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is a reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal cases, but the evidence must be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.[44]
	GR No. 188066 2014-10-22	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CYNTHIA E. CABEROY REYES, J.
Initially, it must be stated that in a petition for review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court is limited only to a review of errors of law committed by the CA, and the Court is not required to review all over again the evidence presented before the Ombudsman.[19] The rule, nevertheless, admits of exceptions, such as when the findings of the CA and the Ombudsman are conflicting,[20] which is what occurred in the present case. Hence, the Court must now look into the matter of whether the CA committed a reversible error when it reversed the findings and conclusions of the Ombudsman.
	AM No. SB-14-21-J 2014-09-23	ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH IN SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE HEARING PER CURIAM
Your honor, talking about…. Justice Gutierrez Q Do you admit you committed a lapse along that line? Justice Ong A Yes, your honor. You have to forgive me for that.[26] (Emphasis supplied.)