Lawyerly

GR No. 188464

2015-07-29

ALBERTO J. RAZA v. DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS.

PERALTA, J.

To this Court, Raza's contentions as to the allegedly late filing of respondents' motion with the NLRC are untenable. Verily, the concerns raised are all factual which, under a petition for review under Rule 45, should not have been elevated to this Court for review. This Court is not a trier of facts, and this rule applies in labor cases.[35] The issue in question first came up and was already raised on the appeal with the NLRC, whose disposition of it was already affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In such a situation, the findings of the lower tribunals are no longer to be disturbed, and are even accorded finality,[36] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions that would necessitate this Court's review.[37] The petition does not even allege nor demonstrate that the case is covered by any of these exceptions.

GR No. 171482

2014-03-12

ASHMOR M. TESORO v. METRO MANILA RETREADERS

ABAD, J.

The rule in labor cases is that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are to be accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. This is particularly true when passed upon and upheld by the CA.[6]

GR No. 167401

2010-07-05

BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

BRION, J.

In a different vein, the union faulted the company for having dismissed the officers, there being no case filed on the legality or illegality of the strike. We see no merit in this argument. In Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC,[82] we held that "[t]he law, in using the word `may,' grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment." We reiterated this principle in San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance of Filipino Workers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation, Inc.,[83] where we stated that "Despite the receipt of an order from the SOLE to return to their respective jobs, the Union officers and members refused to do so and defied the same. Consequently, then, the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity under Article 264 of the Labor Code. Hence, the dismissal of its officers is in order. The respondent Foundation was, thus, justified in terminating the employment of the petitioner Union's officers."

GR No. 182570

2009-01-27

ROMEO N. VENTURA v. CA

NACHURA, J.

Lastly, in its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and adopted as its own the latter's factual findings. Long-established is the doctrine that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. When passed upon and upheld by the CA, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed. Though this doctrine is not without exceptions, the Court finds that none are applicable to the present case.[18]

GR No. 172800

2008-10-17

MARCIANO L. MASANGCAY v. TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts; only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the Court of Appeals. Questions of fact are not entertained.[36] And in labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force.[37] Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.

GR No. 169712

2008-03-14

MA. WENELITA TIRAZONA v. CA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and adopted as its own the latter's factual findings. Long established is the doctrine that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. When passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed.[42] Though this doctrine is not without exceptions,[43] the Court finds that none are applicable to the present case.

GR NO. 150171

2007-07-17

ACEBEDO OPTICAL v. NLRC

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts; only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the Court of Appeals. Questions of fact are not entertained.[23] And in labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force.[24] Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.

GR NO. 154628

2006-12-06

ESTRELLITA G. SALAZAR v. PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS

VELASCO, JR., J.

The findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded with respect and even finality if based on substantial evidence, and these findings are binding and conclusive upon this Court when passed upon and upheld by the CA.[36]

GR Nos. 158190-91

2006-06-21

NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

GARCIA, J.

substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on specific matters under their consideration and jurisdiction.[17] This doctrine applies with greater force when the appellate court passes upon and upholds such findings of facts.[18] The conclusion of the public respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment, as confirmed by the CA, is that the Union and its members indeed engaged in work slowdown which under the circumstances in which they were undertaken constitute illegal strike. The defiance came in the

GR NO. 165586

2005-06-15

CORNELIO C. CRUZ v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Time and again we have held that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC and of the Labor Arbiter are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, these are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[18] The rationale behind this doctrine is that review of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals is not a function that the Supreme Court normally undertakes.[19] Only when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law will such findings of fact be set aside.[20]

	GR No. 188464 2015-07-29	ALBERTO J. RAZA v. DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS. PERALTA, J.
To this Court, Raza's contentions as to the allegedly late filing of respondents' motion with the NLRC are untenable. Verily, the concerns raised are all factual which, under a petition for review under Rule 45, should not have been elevated to this Court for review. This Court is not a trier of facts, and this rule applies in labor cases.[35] The issue in question first came up and was already raised on the appeal with the NLRC, whose disposition of it was already affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In such a situation, the findings of the lower tribunals are no longer to be disturbed, and are even accorded finality,[36] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions that would necessitate this Court's review.[37] The petition does not even allege nor demonstrate that the case is covered by any of these exceptions.
	GR No. 171482 2014-03-12	ASHMOR M. TESORO v. METRO MANILA RETREADERS ABAD, J.
The rule in labor cases is that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are to be accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. This is particularly true when passed upon and upheld by the CA.[6]
	GR No. 167401 2010-07-05	BAGONG PAGKAKAISA NG MANGGAGAWA NG TRIUMPH INTERNATIONAL v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF LABOR BRION, J.
In a different vein, the union faulted the company for having dismissed the officers, there being no case filed on the legality or illegality of the strike. We see no merit in this argument. In Gold City Integrated Port Service, Inc. v. NLRC,[82] we held that "[t]he law, in using the word `may,' grants the employer the option of declaring a union officer who participated in an illegal strike as having lost his employment." We reiterated this principle in San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees Union-Alliance of Filipino Workers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation, Inc.,[83] where we stated that "Despite the receipt of an order from the SOLE to return to their respective jobs, the Union officers and members refused to do so and defied the same. Consequently, then, the strike staged by the Union is a prohibited activity under Article 264 of the Labor Code. Hence, the dismissal of its officers is in order. The respondent Foundation was, thus, justified in terminating the employment of the petitioner Union's officers."
	GR No. 182570 2009-01-27	ROMEO N. VENTURA v. CA NACHURA, J.
Lastly, in its assailed decision, the CA affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and adopted as its own the latter's factual findings. Long-established is the doctrine that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. When passed upon and upheld by the CA, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed. Though this doctrine is not without exceptions, the Court finds that none are applicable to the present case.[18]
	GR No. 172800 2008-10-17	MARCIANO L. MASANGCAY v. TRANS-GLOBAL MARITIME AGENCY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts; only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the Court of Appeals. Questions of fact are not entertained.[36] And in labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force.[37] Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.
	GR No. 169712 2008-03-14	MA. WENELITA TIRAZONA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In its assailed decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the NLRC and adopted as its own the latter's factual findings. Long established is the doctrine that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. When passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed.[42] Though this doctrine is not without exceptions,[43] the Court finds that none are applicable to the present case.
	GR NO. 150171 2007-07-17	ACEBEDO OPTICAL v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts; only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the Court of Appeals. Questions of fact are not entertained.[23] And in labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force.[24] Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.
	GR NO. 154628 2006-12-06	ESTRELLITA G. SALAZAR v. PHILIPPINE DUPLICATORS VELASCO, JR., J.
The findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded with respect and even finality if based on substantial evidence, and these findings are binding and conclusive upon this Court when passed upon and upheld by the CA.[36]
	GR Nos. 158190-91 2006-06-21	NISSAN MOTORS PHILIPPINES v. SECRETARY OF LABOR GARCIA, J.
substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on specific matters under their consideration and jurisdiction.[17] This doctrine applies with greater force when the appellate court passes upon and upholds such findings of facts.[18] The conclusion of the public respondent Secretary of Labor and Employment, as confirmed by the CA, is that the Union and its members indeed engaged in work slowdown which under the circumstances in which they were undertaken constitute illegal strike. The defiance came in the
	GR NO. 165586 2005-06-15	CORNELIO C. CRUZ v. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS. YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Time and again we have held that the findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC and of the Labor Arbiter are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, these are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[18] The rationale behind this doctrine is that review of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals is not a function that the Supreme Court normally undertakes.[19] Only when there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law will such findings of fact be set aside.[20]

SAN JUAN DE DIOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION EMPLOYEES UNION-ALLIANCE OF FILIPINO WORKERS v. SAN JUAN DE DIOS EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION