This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In Dacut v. Court of Appeals, we held that the fact that the Labor Arbiter admitted the company's reply after the case had been submitted for decision did not make the proceedings before him irregular.[65] In Sasan, Sr. v. National Labor Relations Commission, we also held that the submission of additional evidence on appeal before the NLRC is not prohibited by its New Rules of Procedure; after all, rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law or equity are not controlling in labor cases.[66] Indeed, technical rules of evidence do not apply if the decision to grant the petition proceeds from an examination of its sufficiency as well as a careful look into the arguments contained in position papers and other documents.[67] | |||||
|
2010-05-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, we emphasize that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, a petition for review on certiorari shall only raise questions of law considering that the findings of fact of the CA are, as a general rule, conclusive upon and binding on the Supreme Court.[25] In this recourse, petitioner indulges us to calibrate once again the evidence adduced by the parties and to re-evaluate the credibility of their witnesses. On this ground alone, the instant petition deserves to be denied outright. However, as the liberty of petitioner is at stake and following the principle that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case wide open for review, we are inclined to delve into the merits of the present petition. | |||||