FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243281. December 5, 2018.]
SPOUSES ANDRES D. CABRERA AND ADELAIDA SAVILA-CABRERA AND AS GUARDIANS OF THE MINORS PETERSON OROSCO AND PIA MAE OROSCO, petitioners, vs.EMILIO RAMOS CU AND VERONICA SHANE S. CU, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 5, 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243281 [formerly UDK 16288] — Spouses Andres D. Cabrera and Adelaida Savila-Cabrera and as guardians of the minors Peterson Orosco and Pia Mae Orosco, Petitioners, v. Emilio Ramos Cu and Veronica Shane S. Cu, Respondents.
In view of the Order 1 dated January 15, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) granting petitioners' Motion to Litigate as Pauper Litigant and exempting them from payment of docket and other legal fees, the Judicial Records Office of this Court is ordered to re-docket this petition as a regular case.
Petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file the petition is GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, arguments, and issues raised, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED (1) for raising a factual issue; and (2) for failure to accompany the petition with such material portions of the records (i.e., copies of the Complaint, the RTC's Decision of July 9, 2015, etc.) as would support the allegations therein and as required by Section 4 (d), Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
In Gepulle-Garbo v. Spouses Garabato, 2 the Court held as follows: CAIHTE
"The issue raised by petitioner is essentially factual in nature, the determination of which is best left to the courts below. Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme 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. As a matter of sound practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual findings of the trial courts, more so, when as here, such findings are undisturbed by the appellate court. Stated otherwise, the Court refrains from further scrutiny of factual findings of trial courts, more so when those findings are affirmed by the CA. To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which is not meant to be. Certainly[,] the rule admits exceptions[,] none, however, is applicable to the case at bar. Absent any application of any of the recognized exceptions, this Court is bound by the findings of fact by the lower courts."
Verily, here, the question of whether or not respondent Emilio Ramos Cu was negligent in driving the Honda Jazz is a question of fact which is beyond the ambit of a Rule 45 Petition. In the absence of any showing that this case falls under one of the recognized exceptions to the rule that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court, it refrains from departing from the factual findings of the RTC as affirmed by the appellate court.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the assailed March 20, 2018 3 Decision and August 23, 2018 4 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107305. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-6.
2. 750 Phil. 846, 854-855 (2015.)
3.Rollo, pp. 17-26; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao and concurred in by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and Jhosep Y. Lopez.
4.Id. at 27-29.