Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

RAMOS VS. PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING CO.

OF THE PHILIPPINES
GR NO. L-22533
FEBRUARY 9, 1967

Facts: Placido and Augusto Ramos sued Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. and Andres Bonifacio in the CFI
of Manilas as a consequence of collision involving the car of the former and the PEPSI-COLA’s
tractor-truck. Juan Anasco, personnel manager of defendant company testified on the procedure
and manner to which the driver was hired. CFI found PEPSI-COLA and Bonifacio solidarily liable
with Ramos. On appeal, CA found Bonifacio negligent, but modified it by absolving defendant
PEPSI-COLA from liability having proven the it exercised due diligence in the selection of its
driver. Plaintiffs thereupon appealed through petition for review.

Issue: Whether or not the Supreme Court may rule on the fact and credibility of the witness

Ruling: No. Añasco's credibility is not for this Court now to re-examine. And said witness having
been found credible by the Court of Appeals, his testimony, as accepted by said Court, cannot at
this stage be assailed. As We said in Co Tao v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-9194, April 25,
1957, assignments of error involving the credibility of witnesses and which in effect dispute the
findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, cannot be reviewed in these proceedings. For a question
to be one of law it must involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented
by the litigants or any of them. And the distinction is well-known: There is a question of law in
a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts;
there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or the falsehood of
alleged facts. From all this it follows that for the purposes of this appeal, it must be taken as
established that, as testified to by Añasco, PEPSI-COLA did in fact carefully examine the driver-
applicant Bonifacio as to his qualifications, experiences and record of service, taking all steps
mentioned by the Court of Appeals in its decision already quoted.

MIRANT (PHILIPPINES) CORPORATION vs. DANILO SARIO


GR NO. 197598
NOVEMBER 21, 2012

Facts: Danilo Sario filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, backwages, damags and attorney’s fees
against Mirant Corporation, and its officers. At the time material to the case, the company issued
the 2002 MMD Policies and Procedures Manual for the guidance of its employees and officers
soliciting bid quotations and proposals from vendors, suppliers and contractors. This manual was
replaced by the 2004 Procurement Policies and Procedures Manual which was disseminated and
which became effective on August 31, 2004. Sario was dismissed for violation of the provisions
of the Manual. The Labor Arbiter declared that he was illegally dismissed. NLRC reversed the
decision. However, the CS reinstated the decision of the LA.

Issue: Whether or not the petition raised questions of fact rather than any clear and distinct
question of law
Ruling: No. There is a question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts; there is a question of fact when the doubt or difference
arises as to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. “For a question to be one of law, it must involve
no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them.”
The facts are largely not in dispute. From the labor arbiter to the NLRC and then to the CA, the
discussions centered on Sario’s violations of the company’s 2002 and 2004 Procurement Manuals,
violations which provided the cause for his dismissal.

LANTING VS. OMBUDSMAN


GR NO. 141426
MAY 6, 2005

Facts: Zenaida Lanting was the Administrative Officer IV of the City Council of Manila. She filed
with the Office of the Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint charging then Manila Vice-Mayor Jose
Atienza, Jr. and respondents for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. She alleged
that these city officials unlawfully and feloniously appointed Ernesto Saw, Jr. a Chinese citizen
working in Taiwan to the position of Researcher in the City Council. The charges was dismissed
by the Ombudsman. Petitioner filed with the CA a petition for certiorari and mandamus. CA issued
a Resolution dismissing the petition on the ground that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction over the Ombudsman’s Resolution

Ruling: No. Considering that petitioner’s complaint is criminal in nature, this Court has the sole
authority to review the Ombudsman’s Resolutions on pure question of law as expressly mandated
in Section 14, 2nd paragraph of RA 6770. In Fabian vs. Desierto, we held that only “appeals from
the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken
to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43.

FABIAN VS. DESIERTO


GR NO. 129742
SEPTEMBER 16, 1998

Facts: Teresita Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMAT Construction
Development Corporation which was engaged in the construction business. Private respondent
was the incumbent District engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District when he
allegedly committed the charges against him, oppression, misconduct, and disgraceful or immoral
conduct by employing acts of harassment, intimidation and threats against the petitioner. The
Ombudsman found the private respondent guilty of misconduct. On motion for reconsideration,
Deputy Ombudsman Jesus Guerrero set aside the Order of respondent Ombudsman and exonerated
private respondent from the administrative charges.

Issue: Whether or not the administrative disciplinary cases, orders or decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman may be appealed to the Supreme Court

Ruling: No. Section 27 of RA 6770 cannot validly authorize on appeal to this Court. From
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman on administrative disciplinary cases. It consequently
violates the prescription in Section 30, article VI of the Constitution against a law which increases
the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. No countervailing argument has been cogently presented
to justify such disregard of the constitutional prohibition which was intended to give this Court a
measure of control over cases placed under its appellate jurisdiction. Otherwise, the indiscriminate
enactment of legislation enlarging its appellate jurisdiction would unnecessarily hinder the court.