This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-08-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In a petition for review on certiorari, this Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous.[13] Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[14] The issues presented by the petitioner are factual in nature. Nevertheless, the CA committed no error in its questioned decision and resolution. | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In a petition for review on certiorari, our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous.[16] We are not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[17] Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[18] They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record.[19] We find these exceptions in this case. | |||||
|
2008-01-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that the findings of the LA, when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous.[16] It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[17] In a petition for review on certiorari, this Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law in the absence of any showing that the factual findings complained of are devoid of support in the records or are glaringly erroneous.[18] Firm is the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[19] Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only great respect but even finality.[20] They are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in utter disregard of the evidence on record.[21] We find none of these exceptions in the present case. | |||||
|
2007-07-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| On this matter, petitioners want this Court to consider the instant case as an exception to the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; hence, importuning that we make findings of fact anew. It bears stressing that in a petition for review on certiorari, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the Court of Appeals is generally confined only to errors of law,[43] and questions of fact are not entertained. We elucidated on our fidelity to this rule, and we said:Thus, only questions of law may be brought by the parties and passed upon by this Court in the exercise of its power to review. Also, 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.[44] | |||||
|
2007-01-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It is a basic rule in evidence that parties must prove their affirmative allegations. While technical rules are not strictly followed in the NLRC, this does not mean that the rules on proving allegations are entirely ignored. Bare allegations are not enough. They must be supported by substantial evidence at the very least.[34] | |||||