Lawyerly

GR No. 191018

2016-01-25

BRION, J.

The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has also carved out recognized exceptions[5] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;[6] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;[7] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[8] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[9] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[10] (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;[11] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court's;[12] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[13] (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;[14] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[15] and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[16]

GR No. 182395

2015-10-05

MARITO T. BERNALES v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES

BRION, J.

At the outset, we also note that the petitioner only raised questions of fact, which are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. Under Section 1 of Rule 45, such petition shall only raise questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not our function to analyze and weigh the evidence that the lower courts have passed upon. Ordinarily, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has carved out recognized exceptions[4] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;[5] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[6] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[7] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[8] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[9] (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;[10] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;[11] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[12] (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;[13] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[14] and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[15]

GR NO. 130348

2007-09-03

MIGUEL SORIANO v. ANTERO SORIANO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Of course, this Court may be minded to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, but only in the presence of any of the following circumstances: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;[46] (2) the interference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[47] (3) there is grave abuse of discretion;[48] (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[49] (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;[50] (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;[51] (7) the findings of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;[52] (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;[53] (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;[54] (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case;[55] and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[56]

GR NO. 159938

2006-03-31

SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT v. DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES

GARCIA, J.

When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[24] When there is grave abuse of discretion; [25] When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; [26] When the findings of fact are conflicting; [27] and 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. [28]

GR NO. 149090

2005-02-11

BENEDICTO A. CAJUCOM VII v. TPI PHILIPPINES CEMENT CORPORATION

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court:[3] (1) the legal conclusions made by the lower tribunal are speculative;[4] (2) its inferences are manifestly mistaken,[5] absurd or impossible; (3) the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[6] (5) the findings of fact of the lower tribunals are conflicting;[7] (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues; (7) the Court of Appeals' findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties;[8] (8) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked facts not disputed which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion; (9) the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[9]

GR NO. 159121

2005-02-03

PAMPLONA PLANTATION COMPANY v. RODEL TINGHIL

PANGANIBAN, J.

Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court:[11] (1) the legal conclusions made by the lower tribunal are speculative;[12] (2) its inferences are manifestly mistaken,[13] absurd, or impossible; (3) the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[14] (5) the findings of fact of the lower tribunals are conflicting;[15] (6) the CA went beyond the issues; (7) the CA's findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties;[16] (8) the CA manifestly overlooked facts not disputed which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion; (9) the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[17]

GR No. 152168

2004-12-10

HEIRS OF LATE SPS. AURELIO AND ESPERANZA BALITE v. RODRIGO N. LIM

PANGANIBAN, J.

To begin with, this Court is not a trier of facts. [21] It is not its function to examine and determine the weight of the evidence. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that only errors of law,[22] and not of facts, are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[23] has held that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. These findings may be reviewed[24] only under exceptional circumstances such as, among others, when the inference is manifestly mistaken;[25] the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[26] findings of the trial court contradict those of the CA;[27] or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[28]

GR No. 150751

2004-09-20

CENTRAL SHIPPING COMPANY v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA

PANGANIBAN, J.

At the outset, it must be stressed that only questions of law[13] may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Questions of fact are not proper subjects in this mode of appeal,[14] for "[t]he Supreme Court is not a trier of facts."[15] Factual findings of the CA may be reviewed on appeal[16] only under exceptional circumstances such as, among others, when the inference is manifestly mistaken,[17] the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts,[18] or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[19]

GR No. 148753

2004-07-30

NEW SAMPAGUITA BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

PANGANIBAN, J.

At the outset, it must be stressed that only questions of law[12] may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As a rule, questions of fact cannot be the subject of this mode of appeal,[13] for "[t]he Supreme Court is not a trier of facts."[14] As exceptions to this rule, however, factual findings of the CA may be reviewed on appeal[15] when, inter alia, the factual inferences are manifestly mistaken;[16] the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[17] or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different legal conclusion.[18] In the present case, these exceptions exist in various instances, thus prompting us to take cognizance of factual issues and to decide upon them in the interest of justice and in the exercise of our sound discretion.[19]

GR No. 125451

2000-01-20

MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. CA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Even if the conclusion of fact is based on uncontroverted or plain evidence, it can still be examined and it can still be reversed if reasonable men agree that the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible.[15]

	GR No. 191018 2016-01-25	CARLOS BORROMEO v. FAMILY CARE HOSPITAL BRION, J.
The factual findings of the Court of Appeals are, as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has also carved out recognized exceptions[5] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures;[6] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;[7] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[8] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[9] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[10] (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;[11] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court's;[12] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[13] (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;[14] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[15] and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[16]
	GR No. 182395 2015-10-05	MARITO T. BERNALES v. NORTHWEST AIRLINES BRION, J.
At the outset, we also note that the petitioner only raised questions of fact, which are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari. Under Section 1 of Rule 45, such petition shall only raise questions of law. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and it is not our function to analyze and weigh the evidence that the lower courts have passed upon. Ordinarily, the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this Court. However, jurisprudence has carved out recognized exceptions[4] to this rule, to wit: (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures;[5] (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[6] (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;[7] (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[8] (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting;[9] (6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee;[10] (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court;[11] (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;[12] (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;[13] (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record;[14] and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[15]
	GR NO. 130348 2007-09-03	MIGUEL SORIANO v. ANTERO SORIANO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Of course, this Court may be minded to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, but only in the presence of any of the following circumstances: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures;[46] (2) the interference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[47] (3) there is grave abuse of discretion;[48] (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[49] (5) the findings of fact are conflicting;[50] (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based;[51] (7) the findings of fact are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record;[52] (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court;[53] (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion;[54] (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are beyond the issues of the case;[55] and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[56]
	GR NO. 159938 2006-03-31	SHANGRI-LA INTERNATIONAL HOTEL MANAGEMENT v. DEVELOPERS GROUP OF COMPANIES GARCIA, J.
When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;[24] When there is grave abuse of discretion; [25] When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; [26] When the findings of fact are conflicting; [27] and 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. [28]
	GR NO. 149090 2005-02-11	BENEDICTO A. CAJUCOM VII v. TPI PHILIPPINES CEMENT CORPORATION SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, provides that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court:[3] (1) the legal conclusions made by the lower tribunal are speculative;[4] (2) its inferences are manifestly mistaken,[5] absurd or impossible; (3) the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[6] (5) the findings of fact of the lower tribunals are conflicting;[7] (6) the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues; (7) the Court of Appeals' findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties;[8] (8) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked facts not disputed which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion; (9) the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[9]
	GR NO. 159121 2005-02-03	PAMPLONA PLANTATION COMPANY v. RODEL TINGHIL PANGANIBAN, J.
Section 1 of Rule 45 of the Rules of Court states that only questions of law are entertained in appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court. However, jurisprudence has recognized several exceptions in which factual issues may be resolved by this Court:[11] (1) the legal conclusions made by the lower tribunal are speculative;[12] (2) its inferences are manifestly mistaken,[13] absurd, or impossible; (3) the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[14] (5) the findings of fact of the lower tribunals are conflicting;[15] (6) the CA went beyond the issues; (7) the CA's findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties;[16] (8) the CA manifestly overlooked facts not disputed which, if considered, would justify a different conclusion; (9) the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of the specific evidence on which they are based; and (10) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence but such findings are contradicted by the evidence on record.[17]
	GR No. 152168 2004-12-10	HEIRS OF LATE SPS. AURELIO AND ESPERANZA BALITE v. RODRIGO N. LIM PANGANIBAN, J.
To begin with, this Court is not a trier of facts. [21] It is not its function to examine and determine the weight of the evidence. Well-entrenched is the doctrine that only errors of law,[22] and not of facts, are reviewable by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court. Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals[23] has held that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court. These findings may be reviewed[24] only under exceptional circumstances such as, among others, when the inference is manifestly mistaken;[25] the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[26] findings of the trial court contradict those of the CA;[27] or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[28]
	GR No. 150751 2004-09-20	CENTRAL SHIPPING COMPANY v. INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA PANGANIBAN, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that only questions of law[13] may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Questions of fact are not proper subjects in this mode of appeal,[14] for "[t]he Supreme Court is not a trier of facts."[15] Factual findings of the CA may be reviewed on appeal[16] only under exceptional circumstances such as, among others, when the inference is manifestly mistaken,[17] the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts,[18] or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.[19]
	GR No. 148753 2004-07-30	NEW SAMPAGUITA BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK PANGANIBAN, J.
At the outset, it must be stressed that only questions of law[12] may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As a rule, questions of fact cannot be the subject of this mode of appeal,[13] for "[t]he Supreme Court is not a trier of facts."[14] As exceptions to this rule, however, factual findings of the CA may be reviewed on appeal[15] when, inter alia, the factual inferences are manifestly mistaken;[16] the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;[17] or the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different legal conclusion.[18] In the present case, these exceptions exist in various instances, thus prompting us to take cognizance of factual issues and to decide upon them in the interest of justice and in the exercise of our sound discretion.[19]
	GR No. 125451 2000-01-20	MARCIANA MUÑOZ v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Even if the conclusion of fact is based on uncontroverted or plain evidence, it can still be examined and it can still be reversed if reasonable men agree that the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible.[15]

AGUSTIN DE LUNA ET AL. v. JOSE LINATOC