Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
25
SECOND DIVISION.
26
26
1/9
1/24/2017
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
27
10, 1990,
2/9
1/24/2017
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
2
Decision of the RTC, Branch XLVI, 3rd Judicial Region, San Fernando,
28
28
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159cf8d2196a6ee01c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/9
1/24/2017
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
4/9
1/24/2017
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
3
29
29
having
been
5/9
1/24/2017
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
______________
4
30
6/9
1/24/2017
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
7
10
11
31
Decision, Misa vs. CA, G.R. No. 97291, August 5, 1992, pp. 45.
13
The case of Medina v. Asistio, G.R. No. 75450, 191 SCRA 218, 223224 (1990)
enumerates several instances when findings of fact may be passed upon and
reviewed by this Court, none of which obtain herein:
(1)When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
or conjectures (Joaquin v. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257 [1953]) (2) When the inference
made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible (Luna v. Linatok, 74 Phil. 15
[1942]) (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion (Buyco v. People, 95 Phil.
453 [1955]) (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts (Cruz v.
Sosing, L4875, Nov. 27, 1953) (5) When the findings of facts are conflicting
(Casica v. Villaseca, L9590 Ap. 30, 1957 unrep.) (6) When the Court of Appeals,
in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary
to the admissions of both appellant and appellee (Evangelista v. Alto Surety and
Insurance Co., 103 Phil. 401 [1958]) (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are
contrary to those of the trial court (Garcia v. Court of Appeals, 33 SCRA 622
[1970]) Sacay v. Sandiganbayan, 142 SCRA 593 [1986]) (8) When the findings of
fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based
(Ibid.,) (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159cf8d2196a6ee01c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/9
1/24/2017
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents (Ibid.,) and (10) The
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record (Salazar v. Gutierrez, 33
SCRA 242 [1970]).
Ibid.,p. 5.
32
32
8/9
1/24/2017
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATEDVOLUME216
33
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000159cf8d2196a6ee01c6003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/9