Kobe Vs Tom's
Kobe Vs Tom's
FIRST DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Time and again, this Court has explained that only questions of
law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari. The factual
findings of the CA bind this Court. 1 This is especially true here where
the RTC and the CA are unanimous in their factual findings.
1
Pascual v. Burgos, 776 Phil, 167, 169 (2016), citing Section I, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court and
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
·~
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 243835
June 3, 2019
The same can be said on the issue of laches. This Court ruled
in BU:ol.Agro-lndustrial Producers Coop., Inc. (BAPCJ) v. Obias 2 that
"whetlier or not the elements of laches are present is a question
involving the factual determination by the trial court. Hence, the
same being a question of fact, it cannot be the proper subject of herein
petition." 3
xxx [W]e rule that the service of summons upon the branch
manager of petitioner at its branch office at Cagayan de Oro,
instead of upon the general manager at its principal office at Davao
City is improper. Consequently, the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. 6
- over -
31./
2
618 Phil. 170 (2009).
3
Id. at 195. Citation omitted.
4
See People v. Jolliffe, 105 Phil. 677 (1959); Umandap v. Hon. Sabio, Jr., 393 Phil. 657 (2000);
and Sps. Palada v. Solidbank Corporation, 668 Phil. 172 (2011)
5 3 70 Phil. 921 ( 1999).
6
Id. at 931.
~
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 243835
June 3, 2019
Divisi
~
Supreme Court
UR