This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-07-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| What must be realized, however, is that this Court is not a trier of facts. "[T]he jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again."[26] This principle applies with greater force in labor cases, where this Court has consistently held that findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded great respect and even finality,[27] especially if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and are supported by substantial evidence.[28] "Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination."[29] Factual issues are beyond the scope of this Court's authority to review on certiorari.[30] | |||||
|
2008-08-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The only evidence presented by petitioner to prove that he is entitled to sales commissions are the employment certificate, stating that he is an employee of respondents receiving P21,600.00 per month as salary, exclusive of bonuses and sales commissions, and the undisputed fact that private respondent company gave him and its other employees the amount of P85,418.00 sometime in 1998. However, the CA was correct in ruling that the employment certificate was insufficient to prove that petitioner was indeed entitled to his claim for sales commissions, as said document does not give the details as to the conditions for payment of the same or the agreed percentage, if any. As to the amount of P85,418.00, respondents assert that said amount is actually a one-time bonus, not a commission. Thus, even assuming arguendo that petitioner is entitled to sales commissions, his evidence is inadequate to establish the amount to which he is entitled. In Ropali Trading Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission,[20] the employee presented a Memorandum from his employer stating that he would be receiving a 20% overriding commission, including sales commission and interest income on all sales he had successfully obtained. Yet, the Court still struck down petitioner's claim for unpaid commissions, stating that the employee should present evidence, such as credible documents, to prove his claim. Vague and doubtful sales documents, the origins of which have not been proven, are considered insufficient to establish a claim for payment of commissions. | |||||
|
2005-10-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is settled that this Court is not a trier of facts, a rule which applies with greater force in labor cases, where the findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded respect and even finality, as long as supported by substantial evidence from which an independent evaluation of the facts may be made.[27] In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA were unanimous in ruling that the private respondents were dismissed for cause, and the Court finds no reason to reverse such findings. | |||||