APPEALS

Appeal from quasi-judicial agencies to the Court of Appeals –– Construction Industry Arbitration Commission decisions are appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43; while Rule 43 petitions may pertain to questions of fact, questions of law, or both questions of law and fact, it has been established that factual findings of CIAC may not be reviewed on appeal. (Metro Rail Transit Dev’t. Corp. vs. Gammon Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 200401, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      The decisions of the Director of Lands “as to questions of fact shall be conclusive when approved by the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce;” this respect accorded to the factual findings of an administrative body is echoed in Rule 43, Sec. 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure; this Court has consistently accorded respect and even finality to the findings of fact of administrative bodies, in recognition of their expertise and technical knowledge over matters falling within their jurisdiction; Rule 43, Sec. 10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that findings of fact of a quasi-judicial agency, when supported by substantial evidence, shall be binding on the Court of Appeals; consequently, the Court of Appeals did not err in upholding the findings of fact of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and of the Office of the President. (Galindez vs. Firmalan, G.R. No. 187186, June 06, 2018)

Appeal from the Court of Tax Appeals –– For cases before the CTA, a decision rendered by a division of the CTA is appealable to the CTA En Banc as provided by Sec. 18 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282; Sec. 2 of Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the CTA also states that the CTA En Banc has exclusive appellate jurisdiction relative to the review of the court divisions’ decisions or resolutions on motion for reconsideration or new trial, in cases arising from administrative agencies such as the BIR. (BIR vs. Hon. Acosta, G.R. No. 195320, April 23, 2018)

Appeal from the National Labor Relations Commission –– In petitions for certiorari brought before the CA, it must be highlighted that the latter’s parameter of analysis in cases elevated to it from the NLRC is the existence of grave abuse of discretion which may be ascribed to the NLRC when, inter alia, its findings and conclusions reached are not supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Philsynergy Maritime, Inc. vs. Gallano, Jr., G.R. No. 228504, June 06, 2018)

––      Under our present labor laws, there is no provision for appeals from the decision of the NLRC; under Art. 229 of the Labor Code, all decisions of the NLRC shall be final and executory after ten (10) calendar days from receipt thereof by the parties; nevertheless, appellate courts – including this Court – still have an underlying power to scrutinize decisions of the NLRC on questions of law even though the law gives no explicit right to appeal. (Gabriel vs. Petron Corp., G.R. No. 194575, April 11, 2018)

Appeal from the Ombudsman’s Decision –– In administrative cases filed under the Civil Service Law, an allowed appeal may only be brought by the party adversely affected by the decision; thus, the Ombudsman’s decision may not be appealed if it dismisses the complaint or imposes the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one (1) month, or a fine equivalent to one (1)-month salary; otherwise, it may be appealed to the Court of Appeals under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court; in this case, the Office of the Ombudsman’s Decision exonerated respondents; thus, the petitioner has no right to appeal this Decision; in determining whether the Office of the Ombudsman’s Decision is appealable, the deciding factor is the penalty imposed by the Ombudsman in the decision itself. (Canlas vs. Bongolan, G.R. No. 199625, June 06, 2018)

Appeal in criminal cases –– A judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory; the prosecution cannot appeal the acquittal lest the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy be violated; however, the rule admits of two exceptional grounds that can be challenged in a certiorari proceeding under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court: (1) in a judgment of acquittal rendered with grave abuse of discretion by the court; and (2) where the prosecution had been deprived of due process. (People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 228494-96, March 21, 2018)

––      An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned; the appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. (People vs. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018)

(People vs. Mercader, G.R. No. 233480, June 20, 2018)

(Anyayahan vs. People, G.R. No. 229787, June 20, 2018)

(Reyes vs. People, G.R. No. 229380, June 06, 2018)

(People vs. Delociembre, G.R. No. 226485, June 06, 2018)

(People vs. Dela Victoria, G.R. No. 233325, April 16, 2018)

(Cahulogan vs. People, G.R. No. 225695, March 21, 2018)

(People vs. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018)

(People vs. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018)

(People vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, Feb. 28, 2018)

(People vs. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, Feb. 28, 2018)

(People vs. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, Feb. 21, 2018)

(People vs. Guieb, G.R. No. 233100, Feb. 14, 2018)

(People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, Jan. 31, 2018)

(People vs. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, Jan. 29, 2018)

(Rivac vs. People, G.R. No. 224673, Jan. 22, 2018)

(People vs. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      In a criminal case in which the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability arising therefrom; if a criminal case is dismissed by the trial court or if there is an acquittal, an appeal of the criminal aspect may be undertaken, whenever legally feasible, only by the State through the solicitor general; as a rule, only the Solicitor General may represent the People of the Philippines on appeal. (People vs. Alapan, G.R. No. 199527, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      In criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court’s decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. (People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 217889, March 14, 2018)

––      In the appeal of criminal cases before the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, the authority to represent the People is vested solely in the Solicitor General; the OSG is the appellate counsel of the People of the Philippines in all criminal cases; the interest of the private complainant is limited only to the civil liability arising from the crime. (People vs. Alapan, G.R. No. 199527, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      No question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the lower court. (People vs. Santos, G.R. No. 223142, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      Opens the entire case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned; the appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. (People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 07, 2018)

(People vs. Paz, G.R. No. 229512, Jan. 31, 2018)

(People vs. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, Jan. 29, 2018)

––      People v. Miranda, cited; an appeal in criminal cases confers upon the court full jurisdiction and renders it competent to examine the record and revise the judgment appealed from; errors in an appealed judgment of a criminal case, even if not specifically assigned, may therefore be corrected motu propio by the court if the consideration of these errors is necessary to arrive at a just resolution of the case; explained in Miranda. (People vs. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, Feb. 28, 2018)

––      Settled is the rule that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole records of the case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors that may be found in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned; given the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case, an examination of the entire records of the case may be explored for the purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion as the law and justice dictate. (People vs. Andrada, G.R. No. 232299, June 20, 2018)

––      The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. (People vs. Moreno, G.R. No. 217889, March 14, 2018)

(People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, Jan. 31, 2018)

––      The fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the courts below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. (People vs. Año, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018)

––      The rule is that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the entire case out in the open, including those not raised by the parties; considering that under Sec. 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure a favorable judgment shall benefit the co-accused who did not appeal. (People vs. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, March 07, 2018)

 ––      The trial court’s choice is generally viewed as correct and entitled to the highest respect because it is more competent to conclude so, it having had the opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and deportment on the witness stand as they gave their testimonies; this rule finds even more stringent application where the findings are sustained by the CA, as in this case; this general rule has recognized exceptions considering that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. (People vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. 213914, June 06, 2018)

––      While a private prosecutor may be allowed to intervene in criminal proceedings on appeal in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court, his participation is subordinate to the interest of the People, hence, he cannot be permitted to adopt a position contrary to that of the Solicitor General; to do so would be tantamount to giving the private prosecutor the direction and control of the criminal proceeding, contrary to the provisions of law. (People vs. Alapan, G.R. No. 199527, Jan. 10, 2018)

Appeal in labor cases –– In labor cases, an appeal by an employer is perfected only by filing a bond equivalent to the monetary award; Art. 229 [223] of the Labor Code; purpose of requiring an appeal bond; an appeal bond determined by the National Labor Relations Commission to be “irregular or not genuine” shall cause the immediate dismissal of the appeal; however, while the procedural rules strictly require the employer to submit a genuine bond, an appeal could still be perfected if there was substantial compliance with the requirement. (Malcaba vs. Prohealth Pharma Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 209085, June 06, 2018)

––      The CA, in the exercise of its certiorari  jurisdiction, is limited to determining whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; the remedy is the special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court brought in the CA, and once the CA decides the case the party thereby aggrieved may appeal the decision of the CA by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; however, rigidly limiting the authority of the CA to the determination of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the NLRC does not fully conform with prevailing case law, particularly St. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRC,  where the Supreme Court firmly observed that because of the growing number of labor cases being elevated to the Supreme Court which, not being a trier of fact, has at times been constrained to remand the case to the NLRC for resolution of unclear or ambiguous factual findings the CA could more properly address petitions for certiorari brought against the NLRC. (Laya, Jr. vs. Phil. Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 205813, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      With the service by registered mail being complete, the respondents only had 10 calendar days from the return of the mail within which to appeal in accordance with the Labor Code; when they did not so appeal, the LA’s decision became final and executory; with the LA’s decision attaining finality, it was no longer legally feasible or permissible to modify the ruling through the expediency of a petition claiming that the termination of the petitioner’s employment had been legal. (Asayas vs. Sea Power Shipping Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 201792, Jan. 24, 2018)

Appeal to the Court of Appeals –– Every decision or final resolution of the CA in appealed cases shall clearly and distinctly state the findings of fact and the conclusions of law on which it is based, which may be contained in the decision or final resolution itself, or adopted from those set forth in the decision, order, or resolution appealed from; the Court is satisfied that the appellate court has complied with these requirements. (Adlawan vs. People, G.R. No. 197645, April 18, 2018)

––      In reviewing the CA’s decision in a labor case, only questions of law may be entertained by the Court; but the Court, by way of exception, may proceed on an inquiry into the factual issues in order to determine whether or not, as essentially ruled by the CA, the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion by grossly misreading the facts and misappreciating the evidence; the Court may review the facts in labor cases where the findings of the CA and of the labor tribunals are contradictory, which is the case herein. (Casco vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 200571, Feb. 19, 2018)

Appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission –– The Court had declared in previous cases that strict adherence to the technical rules of procedure is not required in labor cases; however, in such cases, it had allowed the submission of evidence for the first time on appeal with the NLRC in the interest of substantial justice, and had further required for the liberal application of procedural rules that the party should adequately explain the delay in the submission of evidence and should sufficiently prove the allegations sought to be proven; the Court is not inclined to relax the rules in the present case in petitioners’ favor. (Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. vs. Masagca, G.R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018)

Appellant’s brief –– Sec. 13, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court provides the requisite contents of an appellant’s brief that is to be submitted before the courts; any deviation from the required contents is dealt with by Rule 50 of the Rules of Court. (Dr. Rich vs. Paloma III, G.R. No. 210538, March 07, 2018)

Factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies –– Accorded much respect by the Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence. (Central Azucarera De Bais vs. Heirs of Zuelo Apostol, G.R. No. 215314, March 14, 2018)

––      The general rule is that only questions of law are reviewable by the Court; rationale; factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by the Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence; in labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force as questions of fact presented therein are for the labor tribunals to resolve; the Court, however, permitted a relaxation of this rule whenever any of the following circumstances is present: (1) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, 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 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; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of 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; or (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; in light of the apparent conflict between the findings of facts of the NLRC and the CA, and on the strength of the relaxation of the rules quoted above, the Court can and will delve into the present controversy. (Seacrest Maritime Mgm’t., Inc. vs. Roderos, G.R. No. 230473, April 23, 2018)

––      Time and again, the Court has held that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, like the SEC, are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their consideration, more so if the same has been upheld by the appellate court, as in this case. (De La Salle Montessori Int’l. of Malolos, Inc. vs.  De La Salle Brothers, Inc., G.R. No. 205548, Feb. 07, 2018)

––      Unfair competition is always a question of fact; thus, the question to be determined is whether or not, as a matter of fact, the name or mark used by the defendant has previously come to indicate and designate plaintiff’s goods; factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, as it is presumed that these agencies have the knowledge and expertise over matters under their jurisdiction, more so when these findings are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. (San Miguel Pure Foods Co., Inc. vs. Foodsphere, Inc., G.R. No. 217781, June 20, 2018)

Factual findings of labor officials –– Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the CA, in the exercise of its expanded jurisdiction to review findings of the NLRC. (Phil. Geothermal, Inc. Employees Union (PGIEU) vs. Chevron Geothermal Phils. Holdings, Inc., G.R. No. 207252, Jan. 24, 2018)

Factual findings of labor tribunals –– Dismissals under the Labor Code have two facets: the legality of the act of dismissal, which constitutes substantive due process; and the legality of the manner of dismissal, which constitutes procedural due process; the only issue to be resolved is the legality of the act of dismissal by re-examining the facts and evidence on record; given that the Court is not a trier of facts, and the scope of its authority under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact, which are for labor tribunals to resolve, one of the recognized exceptions to the rule is when the factual findings and conclusion of the labor tribunals are contradictory or inconsistent with those of the Court of Appeals. (Arcilla vs. Zulisibs, Inc., G.R. No. 225125, June 06, 2018)

Factual findings of the Court of Appeals –– As a rule, the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the RTC are final and conclusive, and they cannot be reviewed by the Court which has jurisdiction to rule only on questions of law in Rule 45 petitions to review; there are recognized exceptions where the Court may review questions of fact: (1) when the factual conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA went beyond the issues of the case in making its findings, which are further contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the CA’s findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the conclusions do not cite the 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 respondents; (10) when the CA’s findings of fact, supposedly premised on the absence of evidence, are contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Mendoza vs. Sps. Palugod, G.R. No. 220517, June 20, 2018)

––      The Court of Appeals has the jurisdiction to review, and even reverse, the factual findings of the trial court; for the Court of Appeals’ factual findings to be reviewed by this Court, it must be shown that it gravely abused its discretion in appreciating the parties’ respective evidence; MERALCO has failed to show how the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in arriving at its factual findings and conclusions, or how it grossly misapprehended the evidence presented as to warrant a finding that its review and reversal of the trial court’s findings of fact had been in error. (Mla. Electric Co. vs. Nordec Phils., G.R. No. 196020, April 18, 2018)

––      The factual findings of the Court of Appeals, which affirm those of the trial court, are binding on the Court; the Court may revise such findings only when the accused-appellant convincingly demonstrates that such findings were erroneous, or biased, or unfounded, or incomplete, or unreliable, or conflicted with the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, which has not been demonstrated by the accused-appellant in this case. (People vs. Molina, G.R. No. 229712, Feb. 28, 2018)

Factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals –– The Court accords findings and conclusions of the CTA with the highest respect; as a specialized court dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, the CTA has accordingly developed an expertise on the subject of taxation; thus, its decisions are presumed valid in every aspect and will not be overturned on appeal, unless the Court finds that the questioned decision is not supported by substantial evidence or there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority on the part of the tax court; application. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. vs.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 222428, Feb. 19, 2018)

––      The Court will not lightly set aside the conclusions reached by the CTA which, by the very nature of its function of being dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, has developed an expertise on the subject, unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority; findings of fact by the CTA, accorded with the highest respect and can only be disturbed on appeal if they are not supported by substantial evidence or there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the CTA. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Bank of the Phil. Islands, G.R. No. 224327, June 11, 2018)

––      The CTA En Banc, based on their appreciation of the evidence presented to them, unequivocally ruled that petitioner corporation has sufficiently proven its entitlement to the refund or the issuance of a tax credit certificate in its favor for unutilized input VAT; it is well settled that factual findings of the CTA when supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed on appeal; due to the nature of its functions, the tax court dedicates itself to the study and consideration of tax problems and necessarily develops expertise thereon. (Team Sual Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 201225-26, April 18, 2018)

Factual findings of the Ombudsman –– The Ombudsman’s factual findings are binding and conclusive when supported by substantial evidence, pursuant to R.A. No. 6770; if the Ombudsman’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, this Court need not review or reevaluate the evidence. (Canlas vs. Bongolan, G.R. No. 199625, June 06, 2018)

Factual findings of the Sandiganbayan –– The appellate jurisdiction of the Court over the decisions and final orders of the Sandiganbayan is limited to questions of law; as a general rule, the Court does not review the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, which are conclusive upon the Court. (Venezuela vs. People, G.R. No. 205693, Feb. 14, 2018)

Factual findings of the trial court –– As a general rule, factual findings of the trial court are accorded great weight and respect especially when they are affirmed by the appellate court; exception; where the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which can affect the result of the case, the Supreme Court is duty-bound to correct this palpable error for the right to liberty, which stands second only to life in the hierarchy of constitutional rights, cannot be lightly taken away. (People vs. Gimpaya, G.R. No. 227395, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      Basic is the rule that findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are conclusive absent any evidence that both courts ignored, misconstrued, or misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, would warrant a modification or reversal of the outcome of the case; since the aforementioned exceptions are not present, the Court is inclined to agree with the findings of the RTC and the CA. (People vs. Lababo, G.R. No. 234651, June 06, 2018)

––      Generally, the factual findings of the trial courts, especially when affirmed on appeal by the CA, are binding and conclusive upon this Court; this rule, however, admits of several exceptions and one of which is when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. (Baleares vs. Espanto, G.R. No. 229645, June 06, 2018)

––      In criminal cases, the established rule is that factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record; it is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below. (People vs. Badillos, G.R. No. 215732, June 06, 2018)

––      It is settled that findings of fact of the trial courts are generally accorded great weight; except when it appears on the record that the trial court may have overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied some significant fact or circumstance which if considered, would have altered the result; this is axiomatic in appeals in criminal cases where the whole case is thrown open for review on issues of both fact and law, and the court may even consider issues which were not raised by the parties as errors. (People vs. Agramon, G.R. No. 212156, June 20, 2018)

––      The evaluation of the trial court judge from the viewpoint of having observed the witness on the stand, coupled by the fact that the CA affirmed the findings of the trial court, is binding on the Court unless it can be shown that facts and circumstances have been overlooked or misinterpreted which, if considered, would affect the disposition of the case in a different manner. (People vs. Alboka, G.R. No. 212195, Feb. 21, 2018)  

––      The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and respect; rationale; the accused-appellant failed to show that both tribunals overlooked a material fact that otherwise would change the outcome of the case or misunderstood a circumstance of consequence in their evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses; thus, this Court will not disturb the RTC’s findings of fact as affirmed by the CA, but must fully accept the same. (People vs. Molejon, G.R. No. 208091, April 23, 2018)

––      The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it appears that there are facts of weight and substance that were overlooked or misinterpreted and that would materially affect the disposition of the case. (Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. vs. Germo, G.R. No. 228799, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      When the decision hinges on the credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, the trial court’s observations and conclusions deserve great respect and are accorded finality, unless the records show facts or circumstances of material weight and substance that the lower court overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. (People vs. Rupal, G.R. No. 222497, June 27, 2018)

––      While the trial court’s findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, especially when affirmed by the CA, the same rule admits of exceptions as where facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied; the case at bench falls under this exception and, hence, a departure from the general rule is warranted. (People vs. Andrada, G.R. No. 232299, June 20, 2018)

Findings of the DENR –– By reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction, administrative agencies, like the DENR, are in a better position to pass judgment on the same, and their findings of fact are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts. (Delos Reyes vs. Municipality of Kalibo, Aklan, G.R. No. 214587, Feb. 26, 2018)

Issues raised for the first time –– Will not be entertained because to do so would be anathema to the rudiments of fairness and due process; though not raised below, the issue of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter may be considered by the reviewing court, as it may be raised at any stage; the said court may also consider an issue not properly raised during trial when there is plain error; likewise, it may entertain such arguments when there are jurisprudential developments affecting the issues, or when the issues raised present a matter of public policy; further, the matters raised in the present petition warrant the relaxation of the rules concerning issues raised for the first time on appeal especially considering the jurisprudential developments since the RTC decision and the needs for substantial justice. (Punongbayan-Visitacion vs. People, G.R. No. 194214, Jan. 10, 2018)

Mixed question of law and fact –– “Negligence, that is, a failure to comply with some duty of care owed by one to another, is a mixed question of law and fact”; there is a question of law as to the duty of care owed by a defendant to a plaintiff; the existence of negligence, however, is determined by facts and evidence, which makes it a question of fact; the review of a finding of negligence involves a question of fact. (Cancio vs. Performance Foreign Exchange Corp., G.R. No. 182307, June 06, 2018)

Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 45 –– A party who files a Rule 45 Petition and asserts that his or her case warrants this Court’s review of factual questions bears the burden of proving two (2) things; first is the basic exceptionality of his or her case such that the Supreme Court must go out of its way to revisit the evidence; second is the specific factual conclusion that he or she wants this Court to adopt in place of that which was made by the lower tribunals. (Ebuenga vs. Southfield Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. 208396, March 14, 2018)

––      A  petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall only pertain to questions of law; further, the Rules of Court mandate that petitions for review distinctly set forth the questions of law raised; petitioner takes issue with how the Court of Appeals interpreted the acts of the Judge and found no manifest partiality, which are clearly not questions of law; although this Court may, in exceptional cases, delve into questions of fact, these exceptions must be alleged, substantiated, and proved by the parties before this Court may evaluate and review facts of the case. (Chavez vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 185484, June 27, 2018)

––      A  question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts; the test is not the appellation given to a question by the party raising it, but whether the appellate court can resolve the issue without examining or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is a question of fact. (Valderama vs. Arguelles, G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018)

––      A Rule 45 review is generally limited to questions of law; this limitation exists because we are not a trier of facts who undertakes the re-examination and re-assessment of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial. (Cacho vs. Manahan, G.R. No. 203081, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      As a general rule, a petition for review on certiorari may only raise questions of law, as provided under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure; nevertheless, the Court will not hesitate to set aside the general rule when circumstances exist warranting the same, such as in the present case, where the findings of fact of the probate court and CA are conflicting. (Mitra vs. Sablan-Guevarra, G.R. No. 213994, April 18, 2018)

––      As a general rule, only questions of law raised via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are reviewable by this Court; factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by this Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence. (St. Paul College, Pasig vs. Mancol, G.R. No. 222317, Jan. 24, 2018)

––      As a general rule, the Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally embark in the evaluation of evidence adduced before the lower tribunals; however, this rule allows for exceptions; one of these is when the findings of fact of the quasi-judicial agencies concerned, are conflicting or contradictory with those of the CA; when there is a variance in the factual findings, it is incumbent upon the Court to re-examine the facts once again. (Minsola vs. New City Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 207613, Jan. 31, 2018)

––      As a rule, a party who deliberately adopts a certain theory upon which the case is tried and decided by the lower court, will not be permitted to change theory on appeal; points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court need not be, and ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing court, as these cannot be raised for the first time at such late stage. (Mactan Rock Industries, Inc. vs. Germo, G.R. No. 228799, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      As a rule, only questions of law may be raised under a petition for review under Rule 45 because the Court is not a trier of facts and the factual findings of lower courts are final, binding or conclusive on the parties and to the Court. (United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Sps. Uy, G.R. No. 204039, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      As a rule, the factual findings of the CA affirming those of the trial court are final and conclusive, and they cannot be reviewed by the Court which has jurisdiction to rule only on questions of law in petitions to review decisions of the CA filed before the Court; exceptions. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Saromo, G.R. No. 189803, March 14, 2018)

––      As provided in Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceedings involved, may be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which in essence is a continuation of the appellate process over the original case; on the other hand, a special civil action under Rule 65 is a limited form of review and is a remedy of last recourse; it is an independent action that lies only where there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; certiorari will issue only to correct errors of jurisdiction, not errors of procedure or mistakes in the findings or conclusions of the lower court. (Albor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196598, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      Can no longer entertain factual issues, unless there are compelling and cogent reasons, as when the findings were drawn from a vacuum or arbitrarily reached, or are grounded entirely on speculation or conjectures, are conflicting or are premised on the supposed evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record or when the inference made is manifestly mistaken or absurd. (Metro Rail Transit Dev’t. Corp. vs. Gammon Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 200401, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      Contradictory factual findings between the National Labor Relations Commission and the Court of Appeals do not automatically justify this Court’s review of the factual findings; they merely present a prima facie basis to pursue the action before the Supreme Court; the need to review the Court of Appeals’ factual findings must still be pleaded, proved, and substantiated by the party alleging their inaccuracy. (Hubilla vs. HSY Marketing Ltd., Co., G.R. No. 207354, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      Contrary to the petitioner’s claim, the question of whether the Court’s ruling in the case of Villaflor is applicable to the present case is not a question of fact; given an undisputed set of facts, an appellate court may resolve the issue on what law or ruling is applicable without examining the probative value of the evidence before it; the CA did not err in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for being an improper appeal; the proper mode of appeal is an appeal by certiorari before this Court in accordance with Rule 45. (Valderama vs. Arguelles, G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018)

––      Court permits an offended party to file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG; one such instance is when the interest of substantial justice so requires. (AAA vs. BBB, G.R. No. 212448, Jan. 11, 2018)

––      Factual issues are normally improper in Rule 45 petitions as, under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari; however, the rule admits of exceptions; most evident is how the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals conflict with those of the Regional Trial Court. (Tortona vs. Gregorio, G.R. No. 202612, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      Forfeiture proceedings filed under R.A. No. 1379 are civil in nature, thus, the proper mode of review being a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, and not a special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 thereof; Condes v. Court of Appeals, cited; considering that rules of procedure are subservient to substantive rights, and in order to finally write finis to this prolonged litigation, the Court hereby dispenses with the foregoing lapses in the broader interest of justice. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 189590, April 23, 2018)

––      In bringing forth the issue of remittance, the parties are raising a question of fact which is not within the scope of review on certiorari under a Rule 45 Petition; an appeal under Rule 45 must raise only questions of law; there is a question of law when it seeks to determine whether or not the legal conclusions of the lower courts from a given set of facts are correct, i.e. what is the law, given a particular set of circumstances?; on the other hand, there is a question of fact when the issue involves the truth or falsity of the parties’ allegations. (Phil. Airlines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 206079-80, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      In order to determine the veracity of the petitioner’s main contention that it has established a prima facie case against respondents through its documentary and testimonial evidence, a reassessment and reexamination of the evidence is necessary; unfortunately, the limited and discretionary judicial review allowed under Rule 45 does not envision a re-evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which respondent court’s action was predicated. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Cuenca, G.R. No. 198393, April 04, 2018)

––      It has been consistently held that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall only raise questions of law as the Court is not a trier of facts; a factual question would necessitate the reevaluation of the evidence submitted before the trial court; this is allowed in the exceptional circumstance where the judgment is based on a misapprehension of the facts, such as in this case. (Aliling vs. People, G.R. No. 230991, June 11, 2018)

––      It is a well-settled rule that the jurisdiction of the Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited only to reviewing errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record, or the assailed judgment is based on a gross misapprehension of facts. (Bajaro vs. Metro Stonerich Corp., G.R. No. 227982, April 23, 2018)

––      It is elementary that the scope of this Court’s judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact; the present case falls under one of the recognized exceptions to the rule, i.e., when the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and/or the Court of Appeals are in conflict with one another. (Princess Talent Center Production, Inc. vs. Masagca, G.R. No. 191310, April 11, 2018)

––      Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great respect, even finality; the presence of the second and third elements of illegal possession of firearm, ammunition, and explosive raises questions of fact. (Saluday vs. People, G.R. No. 215305, April 03, 2018)

––      Only questions of law raised via a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are reviewable by the Supreme Court. (Career Phils. Shipmanagement, Inc. vs. Silvestre, G.R. No. 213465, Jan. 08, 2018)

––      Only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed under this Rule; this principle, however, is subject to certain exceptions, to wit: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) where there is a 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 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; (7) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact 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 respondents; 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; the crux of the instant petition revolves around the contrasting findings of the LA and the NLRC, on one hand, and the CA on the other with respect to the issue of whether or not respondent’s illnesses are work-related or work aggravated; thus, this issue may be the subject of this Court’s review. (Loadstar Int’l. Shipping, Inc. vs. Yamson, G.R. No. 228470, April 23, 2018)

––      Petitioner cannot be allowed, at this stage of the proceedings, to seek a review by the Court of the factual findings of the CTA Division, as affirmed by the CTA En Banc, as well as a re-examination of the evidence it presented, taking into account the quantum of proof required in the instant case; in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, the Court’s jurisdiction being limited to reviewing only errors of law that may have been committed by the lower court. (Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. vs.  Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 222428, Feb. 19, 2018)

––      Petitioner raises a question of fact not proper under a Rule 45 Petition, which should only raise questions of law. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      Questions of fact will not be entertained by this Court, as it is not its function to analyze and weigh evidence all over again; the petitioner is bringing into issue the correct fair market value of the properties, which is a question of fact; such a question cannot be raised in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45; the Court has laid down exceptions to this rule; petitioner must prove, not merely assert, that any of the exceptions is present in this case. (Canlas vs. Bongolan, G.R. No. 199625, June 06, 2018)

––      Rule 45 does not allow the review of questions of fact because we are not a trier of facts; a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts; the question, to be one of law, must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances and should avoid the scrutiny of the probative value of the parties’ evidence. (Mangondaya (Hadji Abdullatif) vs. Ampaso, G.R. No. 201763, March 21, 2018)

––      Rule 45 of the Rules of Court allows for a direct recourse to this Court by appeal from a judgment, final order, or resolution of the Regional Trial Court; thus, there is no question that a petitioner may file a verified petition for review directly with this Court if only questions of law are at issue; however, if both questions of law and of facts are present, the correct remedy is to file a petition for review with the Court of Appeals; in this case, the underlying question for this Court’s resolution pertains to jurisdiction;  petitioner did not err in filing its appeal directly with this Court. (First Sarmiento Property Holdings, Inc. vs. Phil. Bank of Communications, G.R. No. 202836, June 19, 2018)

––      Sec. 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that the petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth; in appeal by certiorari, therefore, only questions of law may be raised, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial. (Umali vs. Hobbywing Solutions, Inc., G.R. No. 221356, March 14, 2018)

––      Sec. 1, Rule 45 requires that only questions of law should be raised in an appeal by certiorari; subject to certain exceptions, the factual findings of lower courts bind the Supreme Court; for a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Cuenca, G.R. No. 198393, April 04, 2018)

––      Such assignment of error involves questions pertaining to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the relevance and admissibility of the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution; it has been consistently held that in a petition for review on certiorari, the Court does not sit as an arbiter of facts for it is not its function to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the following proceedings; such factual findings can be questioned only under exceptional circumstances which are not present in this case. (Adlawan vs. People, G.R. No. 197645, April 18, 2018)

––      The CA enjoys a wide latitude of discretion in granting a first motion for extension of time, its authority to grant a further or second motion for extension of time is delimited by two conditions: first, there must exist a most compelling reason for the grant of a further extension; and second, in no case shall such extension exceed fifteen (15) days. (Albor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196598, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      The Court holds that the petition fails as the issues it raised involves questions of fact which are not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; it is a fundamental rule that a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law; question of law and question of fact, explained. (Adlawan vs. People, G.R. No. 197645, April 18, 2018)

––      The Court is not duty-bound to analyze, review and weigh the evidence all over again in the absence of any showing of any arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error; factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by the Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence. (Mla. Shipmanagement & Manning, Inc. vs. Aninang, G.R. No. 217135, Jan. 31, 2018)

––      The entire case becomes open to review, and the Court can review matters not specifically raised or assigned as error by the parties, if their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just resolution of the case. (Digital Telecommunications Phils., Inc. vs. Ayapana, G.R. No. 195614, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      The existence or non-existence of bad faith is a factual inquiry; in this respect, the Petition is infirm for raising a question of fact, which is outside the scope of the Court’s discretionary power of review in Rule 45 petitions; while questions of fact have been entertained by the Court in justifiable circumstances, the Petition is bereft of any allegation to show that the case is within the allowable exceptions. (Gov. Cerilles vs. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 180845, June 06, 2018)

––      The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law; a reevaluation of factual issues by this Court is justified when the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record, or when the assailed judgment is based on misapprehension of facts, as in the case at bar. (Florete, Sr. vs. Florete, Jr., G.R. No. 223321, April 11, 2018)

––      The matters raised in this Petition are questions of fact not proper in a Rule 45 petition;  petitions for review on certiorari may only raise questions of law; this Court may review factual issues if any of the following is present: “(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 facts are conflicting; (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; (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 Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.” (Liong vs. People, G.R. No. 200630, June 04, 2018)

(Magat vs. Interorient Maritime Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No. 232892, April 11, 2018)

––      The proper remedy of a party aggrieved by a decision of the CA is a petition for review under Rule 45 and such is not similar to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. (Albor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196598, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      The right to appeal is a statutory right and the one who seeks to avail of that right must comply with the statute or rules; the requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered indispensable interdictions against needless delays. (Albor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 196598, Jan. 17, 2018)

––      The Rules of Court categorically state that a Rule 45 petition shall only raise questions of law; on the one hand, a question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts; on the other hand, a question of fact arises when doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of alleged facts. (Tee Ling Kiat vs. Ayala Corp., G.R. No. 192530, March 07, 2018)

––      The Rules of Court expressly state that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law; nevertheless, the Court has recognized exceptional circumstances as to when we can dwell on questions of fact in resolving a petition for review on certiorari: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record; another circumstance that was not mentioned is when the RTC and the CA have conflicting findings on the kind and amount of damages suffered. (Yamauchi vs. Suñiga, G.R. No. 199513, April 18, 2018)

––      The Supreme Court does not review factual questions such as whether an employer-employee relationship exists between the parties, primarily because it is not a trier of facts. (San Miguel Foods, Inc. vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 220103, Jan. 31, 2018)

––      The Supreme Court is limited in resolving pure questions of law; it should be careful not to substitute its own appreciation of the facts to those of the tribunals which have previously weighed the parties’ claims and even personally perused the evidence; as a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. (Ebuenga vs. Southfield Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. 208396, March 14, 2018)

––      Trial court’s findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal; it is also settled that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review on all questions including those not raised by the parties. (People vs. Villarta, G.R. No. 217887, March 14, 2018)

––      Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari; Pascual v. Burgos, cited; at present, there are 10 recognized exceptions that were first listed in Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr.: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a 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 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; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact 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 respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record; these exceptions similarly apply in petitions for review filed before this court involving civil, labor, tax, or criminal cases. (Remoticado vs. Typical Construction Trading Corp., G.R. No. 206529, April 23, 2018)

––      Well settled is the rule that the Court is not a trier of facts; the function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the lower courts; exceptions to this rule: (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 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 facts 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; two of the exceptions exist in this case. (Ramos vs. People, G.R. No. 227336, Feb. 26, 2018)

––      While administrative findings of fact are accorded great respect, and even finality when supported by substantial evidence, nevertheless, when it can be shown that administrative bodies grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, this Court had not hesitated to reverse their factual findings. (Laya, Jr. vs. Phil. Veterans Bank, G.R. No. 205813, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      Will not entertain questions of fact as the factual findings of the appellate courts are final, binding or conclusive on the parties and upon this court when supported by substantial evidence; exceptions. (Ong Bun vs. Bank of the Phil. Islands, G.R. No. 212362, March 14, 2018)

Petition for review under Rule 42 –– A petition for review under Rule 42 may include questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law; this Court has recognized that the power to hear cases on appeal in which only questions of law are raised is not vested exclusively in the Supreme Court; as provided in Rule 42, Sec. 2, errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court in its decision must be specified in the petition for review. (Intramuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction Dev’t. Co., G.R. No. 196795, March 07, 2018)

––      Under Rule 42, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court, the remedy from an adverse decision rendered by a Regional Trial Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction is to file a verified petition for review with the Court of Appeals. (Intramuros Administration vs. Offshore Construction Dev’t. Co., G.R. No. 196795, March 07, 2018)

Points of law, issues, theories and arguments –– Clear from Rule 64, Sec. 3 of the Rules of Court is that the intervening period petitioner utilized in moving for reconsideration before the COMELEC must be deducted from the thirty (30)-day period for resorting to a Rule 64 petition; as held in Pates v. COMELEC, the fresh period rule in Neypes v. Court of Appeals that resets the period of the filing of an appeal from the date of receipt of the ruling on reconsideration is applicable only in civil cases, not in election controversies; in the case at bar, petitioner failed to indicate when he received a copy of the Resolution of the COMELEC Second Division; in any case, non-compliance with the material date rule, in itself, is already a ground for dismissal. (Atty. Francisco vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 230249, April 24, 2018)

––      Failure to perfect an appeal within the period provided by law renders the appealed judgment or order final and immutable; however, this rule is not without exceptions; in some cases, the Court opted to relax the rules and take cognizance of a petition for review on certiorari after an improper appeal to the CA “in the interest of justice and in order to write finis to the controversy” and “considering the important questions involved in the case”. (Valderama vs. Arguelles, G.R. No. 223660, April 02, 2018)

––      Generally, it is not the province of an appeal by petition for review on certiorari to determine factual matters; although there are exceptions to this general rule, none of these exist in the instant case; the issue of whether a claimant has actually presented the necessary documents that would prove its entitlement to a tax refund or tax credit, is indubitably a question of fact. (Team Sual Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. Nos. 201225-26, April 18, 2018)

––      No question will be entertained on appeal unless it has been raised in the proceedings below; points of law, theories, issues and arguments not brought to the attention of the lower court, administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, need not be considered by a reviewing court, as they cannot be raised for the first time at that late stage. (Rebadulla vs. Rep. of the Phils., G.R. No. 222159, Jan. 31, 2018)

––      Petitioner resorted to a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, and not a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65; the principle of hierarchy of courts does not find any application in this case; in Ysidoro v. Justice Leonardo De Castro, et al., the Court differentiated the nature of the remedies provided under Rules 45 and 65 of the Rules of Court. (Villareal, Jr. vs. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, G.R. No. 232202, Feb. 28, 2018)

––      Rule 45, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court clearly provides for the period within which a petition for review must be filed; failure to file a petition for review on certiorari, or a motion for extension to file it, within the period prescribed under Rule 45, Sec. 2 results in a party’s loss of right to appeal; appeal, being a mere statutory right, must “be exercised in the manner and according to procedures laid down by law.” (Dept. of Agrarian Reform Multi-Purpose Cooperative (DARMPC) vs. Diaz, G.R. No. 206331, June 04, 2018)

––      Rule 56 of the Rules of Court is explicit: Sec. 3. Mode of appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken only by a petition for review on certiorari, except in criminal cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment; an appeal in criminal cases throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment; or even reverse the trial court’s decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors; in this case, the Court takes exception to the rule. (Mapandi vs. People, G.R. No. 200075, April 04, 2018)

––      Sec. 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that the special civil action of certiorari may only be invoked when there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the course of law; a writ of certiorari is not a substitute for a lost appeal; when an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper especially if the appeal was lost because of one’s own negligence or error in the choice of remedy, even if the ground is grave abuse of discretion; under the Rules of Court, the remedy against a final judgment or order is an appeal; Pahila-Garrido v. Tortogo, et al., cited; here, the CTA-Special First Division disposed of the case in its entirety and no other issues were left to further rule upon; the appropriate remedy to challenge the Resolution is an ordinary appeal, not a petition for certiorari. (BIR vs. Hon. Acosta, G.R. No. 195320, April 23, 2018)

––      Settled is the rule that prescription cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; the general rule being that the appellate court is not authorized to consider and resolve any question not properly raised in the courts below. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Yap, G.R. No. 231116, Feb. 07, 2018)

––      Since compliance with the procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the record/s of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation; if no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court’s bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction. (People vs. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018)

––      The Court sees no cogent reason to disturb the uniform findings of the RTC and the CA that appellant was guilty of simple rape and in imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua; there was no showing that the trial court, in assessing the credibility of the witnesses in relation to their testimonies, had overlooked, misapprehended or misconstrued any relevant fact that would affect the outcome of the case;  awards for civil indemnity, as well as moral and exemplary damages, modified. (People vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 220892, Feb. 21, 2018)

––      The fact that the accused raised his or her objections against the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs purportedly seized from him or her only for the first time on appeal does not preclude the CA or this Court from passing upon the same; if doubt surfaces on the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, regardless that it does only at the stage of an appeal, our courts of justice should nonetheless rule in favor of the accused, lest it betray its duty to protect individual liberties within the bounds of law. (People vs. Mola, G.R. No. 226481, April 18, 2018)

––      The failure to attach material portions of the record will not necessarily cause the outright dismissal of the petition; while Rule 45, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court requires that the petition “be accompanied by … such material portions of the record as would support the petition,”  this Court may still give due course if there is substantial compliance with the Rules, pursuant to Rule 45, Sec. 7; in this instance, the documents more than suffice to substantiate petitioners’ claims. (Cancio vs. Performance Foreign Exchange Corp., G.R. No. 182307, June 06, 2018)

––      The issues of prescription and laches raised by the respondent were not passed upon by the CA and cannot be raised before the Supreme Court unless an appeal was filed by the same respondent raising such issues. (Ong Bun vs. Bank of the Phil. Islands, G.R. No. 212362, March 14, 2018)

––      This Court’s review in this Rule 45 Petition is confined to determining the legal correctness of the Court of Appeals Decision on a Rule 65 petition filed before it; the Court resolves whether or not the Court of Appeals properly found grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission when it ruled that respondent is entitled only to a Grade 11 disability compensation. (Orient Hope Agencies, Inc. vs. Jara, G.R. No. 204307, June 06, 2018)

––      Under Sec. 2(c), Rule 41 of the Rules, it is provided that in all cases where only questions of law are raised, the appeal from a decision or order of the RTC shall be to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with Sec. 1 of Rule 45; here, the error relates to a mistake in the application of law and jurisprudence regarding Sec. 6 of Rule 39, and not to an error of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction; this, obviously, is a question of law; consequently, direct resort to the Court is proper. (Villareal, Jr. vs. Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System, G.R. No. 232202, Feb. 28, 2018)

Questions of fact –– Determination of the existence of a breach of contract is a question of fact; a petition for review filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court that assails the Court of Appeals’ failure to find negligence or breach of contract based on the evidence presented is essentially raising questions of fact; the Court will uphold the findings of the Court of Appeals unless the case falls under certain exceptions, which must first be properly pleaded and substantiated. (Cancio vs. Performance Foreign Exchange Corp., G.R. No. 182307, June 06, 2018)

––      Generally, the Court cannot delve into questions of fact on appeal because it is not a trier of facts; instances wherein the Court has opted to settle factual disputes duly raised by the parties: (a) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (b) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (c) when the finding is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (d) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (f) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case, and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (g) when the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (h) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (i) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (j) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence but the premise is contradicted by the evidence on record. (Sps. Pamplona vs. Sps. Cueto, G.R. No. 204735, Feb. 19, 2018)

––      The issues of whether the petitioner is an independent contractor, and the matter of respondents’ employment status are questions of fact that are not the proper subjects of a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; however, considering the variance between the factual determination of the LA and the CA on the one hand, and the NLRC on the other, this case presents an exception for the Court to re-evaluate the evidence on record. (Consolidated Building Maintenance, Inc. vs. Asprec, Jr., G.R. No. 217301, June 06, 2018)

––      While the Court is not a trier of facts, still when the inference drawn by the CA from the facts is manifestly mistaken, as in the present case, it can, in the interest of justice, review the evidence to arrive at the correct factual conclusions based on the record; there is no basis for the CA in holding that the RTC did not err in declaring that the subject shipments were deemed placed under BOC’s constructive possession by its issuance of a Hold-Order over the respondent’s shipment. (Asian Terminals, Inc. vs. Padoson Stainless Steel Corp., G.R. No. 211876, June 25, 2018)

Questions of law –– Factual findings of the lower courts will not be disturbed by this Court if supported by substantial evidence; thus, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that a petition for review on certiorari only raise questions of law; appeal is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion; while questions of fact are generally not entertained by this Court, there are of course, certain permissible exceptions; in Pascual v. Burgos, this Court explained that a party cannot merely claim that his or her case falls under any of the exceptions; he or she “must demonstrate and prove” that a review of the factual findings is necessary. (Cancio vs. Performance Foreign Exchange Corp., G.R. No. 182307, June 06, 2018)

––      Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari; if the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, such as the one posed by petitioner, the question posed is one of fact; while the Court has admitted exceptions to this rule, it does not appear that any of those exceptions was alleged, substantiated, and proven; thus, the factual findings of the courts a quo is binding upon this Court. (Batac vs. People, G.R. No. 191622, June 06, 2018)

Questions of law and questions of fact –– Only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari; a question of law arises when there is doubt or difference as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and the question does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants; on the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts; the present petition merely raises the question whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law and jurisprudence when in granting respondents’ application for registration of title to the subject property. (Rep. of the Phils. vs. Jabson, G.R. No. 200223, June 06, 2018)

Right to appeal –– The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law; as such, the party seeking relief from the appellate court must strictly comply with the requirements set forth by the rules; in this case, petitioner’s failure to abide by the procedural requirements, under the aforesaid circumstances, results in the forfeiture of his right to appeal. (Melendres vs. Ombudsman Gutierrez, G.R. No. 194346, June 18, 2018)

Rule 43 –– In Bañez vs. Social Security System, the Court had occasion to reiterate that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege; failure to file or perfect an appeal within the reglementary period will make the judgment final and executory by operation of law; perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; the appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from the notice of the award, judgment, final order or resolution, or from the date of its last publication, if publication is required by law for its effectivity, or of the denial of petitioner’s motion for new trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance with the governing law of the court or agency a quo. (ABS-CBN Publishing, Inc. vs. Dir. of the Bureau of Trademarks, G.R. No. 217916, June 20, 2018)

Rules on –– Appellate court is empowered to make its own judgment as it deems to be a just determination of the case. (United Coconut Planters Bank vs. Sps. Uy, G.R. No. 204039, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      Belated allegations that changed the theory of his case, which is not allowed under the Rules as it goes against the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process, present. (De Los Santos vs. Lucenio, G.R. No. 215659, March 19, 2018)

––      Mere failure to attach legible copies does not ipso facto warrant the dismissal of a complaint or a petition; as a general rule, a petition lacking copies of essential pleadings and portions of the case record may be dismissed; this rule, however, is not petrified; as the exact nature of the pleadings and parts of the case record which must accompany a petition is not specified, much discretion is left to the appellate court to determine the necessity for copies of pleadings and other documents. (Ben Line Agencies Phils., Inc. vs. Madson, G.R. No. 195887, Jan. 10, 2018)

––      Sec. 15, Rule 44 of the Rules of Court embodies the settled principle that, on appeal, the parties are not allowed to change their theory of the case; an issue not alleged in the complaint nor raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as this goes against the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process; in the same way, a defense not pleaded in the answer cannot also be raised for the first time on appeal. (De Los Santos vs. Lucenio, G.R. No. 215659, March 19, 2018)

Source: Supreme Court of the Philippines - Case Index