Fernando Co v Lina Vargas

G.R. No. 195167, November 16, 2011

The issue raised by petitioner is clearly a question of fact

which requires a review of the evidence presented. The Supreme
Court is not a trier of facts1 It is not the function of this Court to
examine,
review
or
evaluate
the
evidence
all
over
2
again , specially on evidence raised for the first time on appeal. 3
A petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
should cover only questions of law, thus:
Sec. 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A
party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment
or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme
Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The
petition shall raise only questions of law which
must be distinctly set forth.
As a rule, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are final
and conclusive and this Court will not review them on
appeal4, subject to exceptions such as those enumerated by this
Court in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders
Royal Bank5:
The jurisdiction of the Court in cases brought
before it from the appellate court is limited to reviewing
errors of law, and findings of fact of the Court of
1

Alio v. Heirs of Angelica A. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 159550, 27 June 2008

Alicer v. Compas, G.R. No. 187720, 30 May 2011

China Banking Corporation v. Asian

Corporation, G.R. No. 158271, 8 April 2008

Construction

and

Development

Sps. Andrada v. Pilhino Sales Corporation, G.R. No. 156448, 23 February 2011

G.R. No. 171982, 18 August 2010

Appeals are conclusive upon the Court since it is not

the Courts function to analyze and weigh the evidence
all over again. Nevertheless, in several cases, the Court
enumerated the exceptions to the rule that factual
findings of the Court of Appeals are binding on the
Court: (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 petitioners 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.18
Petitioner failed to show that this case falls under any of the
exceptions. The finding of the Labor Arbiter that petitioner bakery
and his residence are located at the same place was not reversed
by the NLRC.19 Furthermore, the Court of Appeals upheld this
finding of the Labor Arbiter. We find no justifiable reason to
deviate from the findings and ruling of the Court of Appeals.