This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-01-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Absent any showing that the appellate court ignored, misconstrued and misapplied facts and circumstances of substance, its affirmance of the NLRC decision holding that petitioners were illegally dismissed stands. It is settled that where the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals all concur in their factual findings and it does not appear that they acted with grave abuse of discretion or otherwise acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the same, this Court is bound by the said findings.[14] The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, being the most equipped and having acquired expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, their findings of fact are accorded not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[15] | |||||
|
2005-06-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Absent any showing that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC or the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion or otherwise acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the same,[31] this Court is bound by its findings of facts. Indeed, the records reveal that the questioned decision is duly supported by evidence.[32] Findings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded by this Court not only with respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This quantum of proof has been satisfied in this case. These are, on the main, factual findings over which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are most equipped to determine having acquired expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction.[33] | |||||