This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-04-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Suffice it to say, however, that the issue of whether Sanchez was dismissed from employment is essentially a question of fact[26] which cannot be raised in this petition for review on certiorari. Besides, we see no compelling reason to deviate from the finding of fact of the CA, which is in absolute agreement with those of the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter, that Sanchez was dismissed from employment. "[FJactual findings of agencies exercising quasi-judicial functions are accorded not only respect but even finality"[27] by this Court when supported by substantial evidence and especially when affirmed by the CA.[28] Here, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the CA were unanimous in finding Sanchez's narration of the circumstances surrounding his illegal dismissal credible. | |||||
|
2010-08-03 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The sole office of writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of jurisdiction, including the commission of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction and does not include correction of public respondent's evaluation of the evidence and factual findings based thereon.[48] An error of judgment that the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction is not correctible through the original special civil action of certiorari.[49] | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Second, the general rule is that before certiorari under Rule 65 can be availed of, a motion for reconsideration must first be filed.[25] However, this rule admits of exceptions.[26] | |||||