Posted by: Jan Placido III on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
Evangeline Tangco a duly licensed firearm holder went to ecology bank to renew her time deposit. Evangeline approached security guard Pajarillo to deposit her firearm. Suddenly, S.G. Pajarillo shot Evangeline with his service dhotgun and eventually killed her.
Evangeline's husband together with their six minor children filed with RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, a complaint for damages against Pajarillo for negligently shooting Evangeline and against Safeguard for failing to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage committed by its security guard. Respondents prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. In their Answer, petitioners denied the material allegations in the complaint and alleged that Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pajarillo; that Evangeline's death was not due to Pajarillo's negligence as the latter acted only in self-defense.
RTC ruled in favor to the heirs of Evangeline and held Pajarillio guilty. RTC rejected Pajarillo's claim that he merely acted in self-defense. Upon appeal, the appealed decision was affirmed by the C.A.
Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari on the issue that whether Pajarillio is guilty of negligence in shooting Evangeline.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the issue is a question of fact or of Law?
HELD:
The issue of negligence is factual in nature. Whether a person is negligent or not is a question of fact, which, as a general rule, we cannot pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari, as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. Generally, factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.
FACTS:
Evangeline Tangco a duly licensed firearm holder went to ecology bank to renew her time deposit. Evangeline approached security guard Pajarillo to deposit her firearm. Suddenly, S.G. Pajarillo shot Evangeline with his service dhotgun and eventually killed her.
Evangeline's husband together with their six minor children filed with RTC, Branch 273, Marikina City, a complaint for damages against Pajarillo for negligently shooting Evangeline and against Safeguard for failing to observe the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage committed by its security guard. Respondents prayed for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees. In their Answer, petitioners denied the material allegations in the complaint and alleged that Safeguard exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of Pajarillo; that Evangeline's death was not due to Pajarillo's negligence as the latter acted only in self-defense.
RTC ruled in favor to the heirs of Evangeline and held Pajarillio guilty. RTC rejected Pajarillo's claim that he merely acted in self-defense. Upon appeal, the appealed decision was affirmed by the C.A.
Hence, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari on the issue that whether Pajarillio is guilty of negligence in shooting Evangeline.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the issue is a question of fact or of Law?
HELD:
The issue of negligence is factual in nature. Whether a person is negligent or not is a question of fact, which, as a general rule, we cannot pass upon in a petition for review on certiorari, as our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law. Generally, factual findings of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, are final and conclusive and may not be reviewed on appeal. The established exceptions are: (1) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (8) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; and (9) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.
