VECTOR SHIPPING V. MACASA (REMEDIAL)

It is a well-settled doctrine that in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court. This Court defined a question of law as distinguished from a question of fact, to wit:

A QUESTION OF LAW arises when there is doubt as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. For a question to be one of law, the same must not involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set of circumstances.

Once it is clear that the issue invites a review of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact. Thus, the test of whether a question is one of law or of fact is not the appellation given to such question by the party raising the same; rather, it is whether the appellate court can determine the issue raised without reviewing or evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law, otherwise, it is a question of fact.

This Court is being asked to evaluate the pieces of evidence which were adequately passed upon by both the RTC and the CA. Without doubt, this matter is essentially factual in character and therefore, outside the ambit of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Petitioners ought to remember that this Court is not a trier of facts. It is not for this Court to weigh these pieces of evidence all over again.

Lastly, we cannot turn a blind eye to this gruesome maritime tragedy. We commiserate with all the victims, particularly with the Macasas who were denied justice for almost 2 decades in thsi case. To accept petitioners' submission that this Court, along with the RTc and the CA, should await the review by the Department of National Defense of the BMI findings, would in effect, limit the court's jurisdiction to expeditiously try, hear, and decide cases filed before them. It would not only prolong the Macasas' agony but would result in yet another tragedy at the expense of speedy justice. This, we cannot allow.