Anda di halaman 1dari 1

CASE #2 1.

When the inference made is manifestly mistaken,


VILLANUEVA V. CA absurd or impossible;
294 SCRA 90 2. When there is a grave abuse of discretion;
1998 3. When the finding is grounded entirely on speculations,
surmises or conjectures;
FACTS: 4. When the judgement of the CA is based on
Almario Go Manuel filed a civil action for sum of money misapprehension of facts;
with damages before the RTC of Cebu against Felix Villanueva 5. When the findings are conflicting;
and his wife Melchora. The check issued by Villanueva 6. When the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the
supposedly represented payment of loans previously obtained issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
by Villanueva from Manuel, as capital for Villanuevas mining admissions of both appellant and appellee;
and fertilizer business. The check when presented for payment 7. When the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the
was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. A demand was trial court;
made upon petitioner to make good the check but failed to do 8. When the findings of fact are conclusions without
so. Manuel then filed a criminal complaint for violation of BP citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
22. 9. When the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant
RTC: Rendered a decision in favour of Manuel. facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly
CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC. considered, would justify a different conclusion; and
10. When the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the
ISSUE: absence of evidence and are contradicted by the
WON the SC acquires jurisdiction over the case at bar. evidence on record.

HELD: After a review of the case at bar, we consider petitioner to


No. the petition should be denied. The petitioner failed have failed to raise issues that would constitute sufficient
to raise issues which would constitute sufficient ground to ground to warrant the reversal of the findings of the trial
warrant the reversal of the findings of fact of the trial and and appellate courts.
appellate courts.

RATIO:
Time and again it has been rules that the jurisdiction of
this Court in cases brought to it from the CA is limited to the
review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the
appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive.
As such, this court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all
over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings
below. The rule, however, admits of the following exceptions:

Anda mungkin juga menyukai