This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-07-21 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the petitioner can raise only questions of law because the Supreme Court is not the proper venue to consider a factual issue as it is not a trier of facts.[8] Findings of fact of administrative bodies charged with their specific field of expertise are afforded great weight by the courts, and in the absence of substantial showing that such findings are made from an erroneous evaluation of the evidence presented, they are conclusive, and in the interest of stability of the governmental structure, should not be disturbed.[9] | |||||
|
2007-06-26 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| To begin with, the question of whether respondent was dismissed for just cause is a question of fact which is beyond the province of a petition for review on certiorari. It is fundamental that the scope of our judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact. More so, in labor cases where the doctrine applies with greater force. [13] The LA and the NLRC have ruled on the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the CA. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality,[14] and are deemed binding upon us so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC have already determined the factual issues, and these were affirmed by the CA. Thus, they are accorded not only great respect but also finality,[14] and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15] A heavy burden rests upon petitioner to convince the Court that it should take exception from such a settled rule.[16] | |||||