This case has been cited 17 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[36] | |||||
|
2015-11-11 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions in jurisprudence.[40] | |||||
|
2015-03-18 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[44] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-09-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.[13] This Court is not a trier of facts; and in the exercise of the power of review, we do not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[14] This rule, however, admits of exceptions. For one, the findings of fact of the CA will not bind the parties in cases where the inference made on the evidence is mistaken, as here.[15] | |||||
|
2014-09-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, "the existence of bad faith is a question of fact and is evidentiary; x x x it requires that the reviewing court look into the evidence to find if indeed there is proof that is substantial enough to show such bad faith."[24] However, this Court is not a trier of facts; it is "not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court x x x."[25] This being the case, the instant Petition must fail because a question of fact cannot properly be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.[26] An appeal by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall raise only questions of law.[27] Indeed, there are recognized exceptions to this rule, to wit: (a) When the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, or conjectures; | |||||
|
2014-03-24 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| As a rule, the parties may raise only questions of law under Rule 45, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below.[60] However, justice for all is of primordial importance that the Court will not think twice of reviewing the facts, more so because the RTC and the CA arrived in contradicting conclusions. | |||||
|
2014-03-12 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises, and conjectures; When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; When the findings of fact are conflicting; When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. [44] Given these considerations, it must be emphasized that what is involved in the present petition is a matter of public welfare and public policy. It is settled that relations pertaining to labor and employment are impressed with public interest. They are deemed matters of public policy which weigh heavily on public welfare. Article 1700 of the Civil Code is clear on this point: Article 1700. The relations between capital and labor are not merely contractual. They are so impressed with public interest that labor contracts must yield to the common good. Therefore, such contracts are subject to the special laws on labor unions, collective bargaining, strikes and lockouts, closed shop, wages, working conditions, hours of labor and similar subjects. (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| that a review of the evidence would necessarily entail a corresponding evaluation of facts ascertained by the Ombudsman and the CA, and that as a general rule, the Court should refrain from delving into factual questions. However, we have already held in a catena of cases that the general rule admits of exceptions, including when the judgment is based on misappreciation of facts or when the findings of facts are conflicting.[49] In light of the series of seemingly confusing orders and rulings promulgated by the Ombudsman, it is beyond cavil that a review of the facts in this case is warranted. a. Evidence against petitioner Aguilar | |||||
|
2014-02-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court must exclusively raise questions of law.[22] Nevertheless, this Court will not hesitate to deviate from what are clearly procedural guidelines and disturb and strike down the findings of the CA and those of the labor tribunals if there is a showing that they are unsupported by the evidence on record or there was a patent misappreciation of facts. Indeed, that the impugned decision of the CA is consistent with the findings of the labor tribunals does not per se conclusively demonstrate its correctness. By way of exception to the general rule, this Court will scrutinize the facts if only to rectify the prejudice and injustice resulting from an incorrect assessment of the evidence presented.[23] | |||||
|
2013-09-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Therefore, a misappreciation of evidence on the part of the lower court, as asserted by petitioner, may only be reviewed by appeal and not by certiorari because the issue raised by the petitioner does not involve any jurisdictional ground.[24] It is a general rule of procedural law that when a party adopts an inappropriate mode of appeal, his petition may be dismissed outright to prevent the erring party from benefiting from his neglect and mistakes.[25] There are exceptions to this otherwise ironclad rule, however. One is when the strict application of procedural technicalities would hinder the expeditious disposition of this case on the merits,[26] such as in this case. | |||||
|
2013-04-10 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| In a Rule 45 Petition, parties may only raise questions of law, because this Court is not a trier of facts.[27] Generally, this court will not review findings of fact of lower courts, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; | |||||
|
2012-08-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As correctly pointed out by respondent, the assigned errors are factual in character. It is axiomatic that a question of fact is not appropriate for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule provides that the parties may raise only questions of law, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[25] | |||||
|
2012-07-23 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc.,[10] we declared: "This rule [Rule 45 of the Rules of Court through which Soquillo filed the instant petition] provides that the parties may raise only questions of law, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally, we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions[.]"[11] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[6] [Emphasis supplied] | |||||
|
2012-03-07 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court [in this case the administrative bodies of Labor Arbiter and NLRC]; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)[29] | |||||
|
2012-02-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record. (Emphasis supplied)[28] | |||||
|
2011-12-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| To prove majority support of the employees, NAMA-MCCH-NFL presented the CBA proposal allegedly signed by 153 union members. However, the petition signed by said members showed that the signatories endorsed the proposed terms and conditions without stating that they were likewise voting for or designating the NAMA-MCCH-NFL as their exclusive bargaining representative. In any case, NAMA-MCCH-NFL at the time of submission of said proposals was not a duly registered labor organization, hence it cannot legally represent MCCHI's rank-and-file employees for purposes of collective bargaining. Hence, even assuming that NAMA-MCCH-NFL had validly disaffiliated from its mother union, NFL, it still did not possess the legal personality to enter into CBA negotiations. A local union which is not independently registered cannot, upon disaffiliation from the federation, exercise the rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor organizations; thus, it cannot file a petition for certification election. [41] Besides, the NFL as the mother union has the right to investigate members of its local chapter under the federation's Constitution and By-Laws, and if found guilty to expel such members. [42] MCCHI therefore cannot be faulted for deferring action on the CBA proposal submitted by NAMA-MCCH-NFL in view of the union leadership's conflict with the national federation. We have held that the issue of disaffiliation is an intra-union dispute [43] which must be resolved in a different forum in an action at the instance of either or both the federation and the local union or a rival labor organization, not the employer. [44] | |||||