FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244452. July 10, 2019.]
ARNOLITA T. GUINYAOAN, petitioner, vs.RAUL F. SABADO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 10, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244452 (Arnolita T. Guinyaoan v. Raul F. Sabado). — The petitioner's motion for an extension of thirty (30) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
After a judicious perusal of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition and AFFIRM the Resolutions dated October 9, 2018 1 and January 17, 2019 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 157515 for failure of petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the Decision 3 dated August 23, 2018 of Branch 42, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City. HTcADC
The petitioner raised the following errors: 4
(1) The CA erroneously ruled that the check 5 was given for a valuable consideration; and
(2) Petitioner's right to due process was denied.
In support of these issues, petitioner argues that the CA denied her due process as it failed to address other points raised in the petition 6 regarding the sufficiency of the testimonies of the witnesses and the item regarding the check 7 being embodied in the contract.
The appeal before Us is clearly raising questions of fact, which require the Court to review anew the evidence presented by the parties. This is not allowed in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, where only questions of law may be raised. 8 The Court may entertain questions of fact only in exceptional circumstances, 9 but petitioner failed to show that the present case is one of them.
Also, this Court, on appeal, is only duty-bound to weigh and sift through the evidence presented during trial. Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the CA, are accorded great respect, even finality. 10
Here, both the CA and the RTC were in concurrence that the subject check is for valuable consideration. 11
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the instant petition for review on certiorari and AFFIRMS the Resolutions dated October 9, 2018 and January 17, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 157515. CAIHTE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 150-161.
2.Id. at 174-175.
3.Id. at 144-148.
4.Id. at 36.
5.Id. at 144; Union Bank Check No. 0000486090.
6.Id. at 38; petitioner referring to her petition for review before the CA (Id. at 51-59).
7.Supra note 5.
8.Gios-Samar, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Communications, G.R. No. 217158, March 12, 2019.
9. (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 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. (Evergreen Manufacturing Corporation v. Republic, G.R. Nos. 218628 & 218631, September 6, 2017, 839 SCRA 200, 215-216).
10.Saluday v. People, G.R. No. 215305, April 3, 2018.
11.Supra note 1, 3.