This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed, at the outset, that the resolution of the issue of whether Nahas acted for and in behalf of PETRA and/or Royal Dream in deploying Olarte abroad is a question of fact. "Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve. Only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the CA."[22] Also "[s]ettled is the rule that the findings of the [Labor Arbiter], when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous."[23] In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are one in their factual conclusion that Nahas, acting for and in behalf of PETRA and Royal Dream, interviewed Olarte, caused her to sign an employment contract, and facilitated and made possible her deployment abroad. The Court is, therefore, not duty-bound to inquire into the accuracy of this factual finding, particularly in this case where there is no showing that it was arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis.[24] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Factual findings made by quasi-judicial bodies and administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality by the appellate courts.[26] This is because administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields.[27] As such, their findings of fact 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 disregard of the evidence on record.[28] | |||||