LEGAL PRINCIPLE: APPELLATE PRACTICE – Concurrent findings of fact – Limited Grounds for Supreme Court Interference with Concurrent Findings

This principle reiterates the Supreme Court’s policy of judicial restraint regarding concurrent factual findings while identifying the specific grounds justifying intervention. The general rule of non-interference recognizes that trial courts and Courts of Appeal have examined the evidence, assessed witness credibility, and reached the same factual conclusions after independent evaluation. Such concurrent findings enjoy a strong presumption of correctness. However, this presumption is not absolute—the Supreme Court will intervene where: (1) there is a miscarriage of justice, meaning the findings are so unreasonable or unsupported by evidence that allowing them to stand would result in manifest injustice; or (2) there is violation of legal or procedural principles, such as improper burden of proof, wrongful admission/exclusion of evidence, failure to consider material evidence, or misapplication of legal standards to facts. The requirement for intervention is substantial—minor errors or disagreements about weight of evidence are insufficient. The appellant must demonstrate clear error that affects the justice of the outcome or violation of fundamental legal principles. This framework balances finality and efficiency in litigation against the Supreme Court’s ultimate responsibility to prevent miscarriages of justice. It preserves the three-tier court system’s division of labor: trial courts find facts, appellate courts review for errors, and the Supreme Court corrects only substantial injustices or legal violations while respecting factual determinations of lower courts that saw and heard witnesses.