This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-11 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Dela Serna,[64] Tiu v. National Labor Relations Commission,[65] Five J Taxi v. National Labor Relations Commission,[66] and Falguera v. Linsangan,[67] among other cases, this Court consistently held that factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies, which have acquired expertise in matters entrusted to their jurisdiction, are accorded not only respect but also finality if they are supported by substantial evidence.[68] Thus, in the absence of proof that the Labor Arbiter or the NLRC had gravely abused their discretion, this Court shall deem conclusive and will not overturn their particular factual findings.[69] | |||||
|
2005-07-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Anent the second issue, the petitioners argue that the CA erred in declaring that the private respondents had been illegally dismissed, and that there was nothing to support such conclusion. They contend that the appellate court disregarded the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, and instead should have accorded respect and finality to such findings, supported as they were by substantial evidence. The petitioners cited the cases of Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. NLRC,[17] Aboitiz Shipping Corporation v. Dela Serna[18] and Rabago v. NLRC,[19] where this Court held that findings of administrative agencies are accorded respect and even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence. Thus, the petitioners pray that the CA decision be reversed and set aside, and the decisions of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC reinstated. | |||||