This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-01-30 |
|||||
| Worth stressing, we find sufficient reason to agree with the appellate court that petitioner failed in this case to prove that respondent abandoned her job. While respondent filed the complaint 20 months after her dismissal, such filing was well within the four-year prescriptive period allowed to institute an action for illegal dismissal.[27] This Court had previously considered a non-issue[28] the lapse of several months,[29] e.g. eight months,[30] nine months,[31] and two years and five months[32] before filing a complaint for illegal dismissal. | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The NLRC decision now assailed is one based on substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[14] It bears stressing that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC which have acquired expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction are accorded by this Court not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence.[15] Here we find no compelling reason to go against the factual findings of the NLRC. The parties had ample opportunity to present below the necessary evidence and arguments in furtherance of their causes, and it is presumed that the quasi-judicial body rendered its decision taking into consideration the evidence and arguments thus presented. Such being the case, it is likewise presumed that the official duty of the NLRC to render its decision was regularly performed.[16] Petitioner has not shown any compelling justification to warrant reversal of the NLRC findings. Absent any showing of patent error, or that the NLRC failed to consider a fact of substance that if considered would warrant a different result, we yield to the factual conclusions of that quasi-judicial agency. More so, when as here, these NLRC conclusions are affirmed by the appellate court. | |||||