Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ADAM GARCIA v. NLRC

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 166703 2008-04-14	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE v. ELY GARCIA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission,[40] we further defined the scope of the Court of Appeals' power to review the evidence when the decision of the NLRC is brought before it via a petition for certiorari -
	GR No. 157775 2007-10-19	LEYTE IV ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v. LEYECO IV EMPLOYEES UNION-ALU AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Nonetheless, a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy for one who complains that the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted in total disregard of evidence material to or decisive of the controversy.[34] As this Court elucidated in Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission[35] -
	GR NO. 171989 2007-07-04	FIRST CORPORATION v. FORMER SIXTH DIVISION OF CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It is a fundamental aphorism in law that a review of facts and evidence is not the province of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, which is extra ordinem - beyond the ambit of appeal.[16] In certiorari proceedings, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof.[17] It does not include an inquiry as to the correctness of the evaluation of evidence.[18] Any error committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by certiorari. An error of judgment is one which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction. An error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of was issued by the court without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, which is tantamount to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and which error is correctible only by the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Certiorari will not be issued to cure errors of the trial court in its appreciation of the evidence of the parties, or its conclusions anchored on the said findings and its conclusions of law.[19] It is not for this Court to re- examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of the witnesses or substitute the findings of fact of the court a quo.[20]
	GR NO. 169600 2007-06-26	MARIVAL TRADING v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As this Court elucidated in Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission[15] --
	GR NO. 161115 2006-11-30	DOLE PHILIPPINES v. MEDEL ESTEVA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As this Court elucidated in Garcia v. National Labor Relations Commission[28]--
	GR NO. 159210 2006-09-20	MOCARAL MACAWIAG v. JUDGE RASAD BALINDONG CALLEJO, SR., J.
In a petition for certiorari, the jurisdiction of the appellate court is narrow in scope. It is limited to resolving only errors of jurisdiction. It is not to stray at will and resolve questions or issues beyond its competence, such as an error of judgment which is defined as one in which the court or quasi- judicial body may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction; an error of jurisdiction is one where the acts complained of were issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. [46] Indeed, judicial review does not go as far as to examine and assess the evidence of the parties and to weigh the probative value thereof.[47] An examination of these issues would require the elevation of the records below, which cannot be done in the present case.