REMEDIAL LAW
Factual-issue-bar Rule - Petition for review under Rule 45 is discretionary. It may only be availed if the appeal is on pure question of law. Thus, question of fact is not allowed to be raised because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. #IncrediBar2023
Instances when Supreme Court may pass upon questions of fact:
-Conclusions of CA is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures
-Inference is manifestly mistaken
-There is grave abuse of discretion
-Judgment is based on misapprehension of facts
1 of 3
-Findings of facts are conflicting
-CA went beyond the issues of the case or its judgment is contrary to the admission of the parties
-Findings of CA is contrary to lower court
-Finding of fact are conclusion without basis in evidence
2 of 3
-Findings of fact of CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.
· Francia v. Sagario AC 10938 (2019) – Non-filing despite receipt of legal fees from client; highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship (Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18)
· Petelo v Rivera AC10408 (2019) – unauthorized practice of law (Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10)
Chair’s cases (Rem)
· Ramirez v. Elomina GR 202661 (2021) - MR was filed out of time; appeal is merely a statutory privilege
· Radaza v. Sandiganbayan GR 201380 (2021) – deficiency remains formal, non-jurisdictional, and curable at any stage of the criminal proceedings
· PNB-Republic Bank v. Sian-Limsiaco GR 196323 (2021) – cancellation of mortgage is a personal action; no transfer or disposition of real property rights; mortgagor is a real party-in-interest in a representative capacity #incrediBar2023#HernandoBar2023#hernanDoIt
· Pineda v. Miranda GR 204997 (2021) – revival of judgment is different and distinct from the original judgment, cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action