This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| This Court recognizes that the issue concerning the validity of the quitclaim was a question of fact that is not within the province of a review on certiorari under Rule 45. However, there is reason to hold that the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion herein. On that basis, the Court has to delve into the factual issue, and has to review the evidence again to ensure that its ruling on the issue jibes with the evidence on record.[16] Its doing so is an acceptable exception to the general rule of non-review of factual matters.[17] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is evident that the CA and LA differ in their factual assessment and legal conclusion from those of the NLRC on three planes: first, on the cause of the termination of the employment of respondents; second, on the legal requirements for the validity of the termination of respondents; and third, on petitioner's compliance with these requirements. Their differing views compelled the Court to scrutinize the records to satisfy itself on which view was more in accord with the facts and the law of the case.[35] | |||||