Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ANABELLE MUAJE-TUAZON v. WENPHIL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 167615 2016-01-11	SPS. ALEXANDER v. KODAK PHILIPPINES LEONEN, J.
The issue of damages is a factual one. A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall only pertain to questions of law.[116] It is not the duty of this court to re-evaluate the evidence adduced before the lower courts.[117] Furthermore, unless the petition clearly shows that there is grave abuse of discretion, the findings of fact of the trial court as affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon this court.[118] In Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr.:[119]
	GR No. 160982 2013-06-26	MANILA JOCKEY CLUB v. AIMEE O. TRAJANO BERSAMIN, J.
Nor was it necessary at all for Trajano to be able to confront the complainant against her. In Muaje-Tuazon v. Wenphil Corporation,[43] the Court has clarified that the opportunity to confront a witness is not demanded in company investigations of the administrative sins of an employee, holding thusly:x x x x
	GR No. 178520 2009-06-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
At the outset, the Court must address petitioners' argument that the Court of Appeals went beyond its jurisdiction when it re-evaluated the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC.[24]
	GR NO. 174644 2007-08-10	GLOBE TELECOM v. JENETTE MARIE B. CRISOLOGO CORONA, J.
This Court ordinarily reviews only questions of law in a Rule 45 petition. In labor cases, the factual findings of the labor arbiter and NLRC are generally respected and, if supported by substantial evidence, accorded finality.[44] This rule, however, is not absolute. When the factual findings of the CA conflict with those of the labor arbiter and the NLRC, this Court is constrained to review the evidence on record.[45]