Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BOLINAO SECURITY v. ARSENIO M. TOSTON

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 158460 2007-08-24	PFIZER v. EDWIN V. GALAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
There are two (2) jurisprudential rules of long-standing in this jurisdiction. First, is the hoary rule that factual issues are beyond the scope of certiorari as they do not involve any jurisdictional issue.[7] As held by this Court in Quiambao v. Court of Appeals,[8] in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, questions of fact are not generally permitted, the inquiry being limited essentially to whether or not the respondent tribunal acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. Second, is the cardinal principle that factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, when devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness, are accorded respect if not finality by the Court of Appeals.[9] And where the findings of the Labor Arbiter are affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, these are deemed binding, final, and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[10] It is not the function of the Supreme Court to inquire into the correctness of the evaluation of the evidence which was the basis for the labor official's ruling. And this Court may not disturb the findings of facts of those officials who have gained expertise in their specialized field, where such findings have been given the stamp of approval by the Court of Appeals.
	GR NO. 164582 2007-03-28	PILAR ESPINA v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, it is significant to note that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC were unanimous in their findings that the closure of respondent M.Y. San is valid and that the employees of respondents M.Y. San and Monde were not illegally dismissed. The issue as to whether there was a valid ground for petitioners' dismissal is factual in nature.[45] We have always held that factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, when sufficiently supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality, and are considered binding on this Court. As long as their Decisions are devoid of any unfairness or arbitrariness in the process of their deduction from the evidence proffered by the parties before them, all that is left is the Court's stamp of finality by affirming the factual findings made by the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter.[46] We find no reason to depart from this Rule.
	GR NO. 169570 2007-03-02	RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Before we delve into the merits of the case, it is best to underscore that the factual findings of the NLRC affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, who are deemed to have acquired expertise on the matters within their jurisdiction, when sufficiently supported by evidence on record, are accorded respect if not finality, and are considered binding on this Court.[26] It is equally true, however, that when the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are inconsistent with that of the Court of Appeals, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[27]
	GR NO. 141802 2007-01-29	G & M v. ZENAS RIVERA
The issues raised are essentially factual. Elementary is the principle that this Court is not a trier of facts. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest. As such, the findings of fact and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[3] This is because it is not the function of this Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below; or reevaluate the credibility of witnesses; or substitute the findings of fact of an administrative tribunal which has expertise in its special field. In this case, we defer to the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, who is deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within his jurisdiction, specially since his findings were affirmed in toto by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals.[4]
	GR NO. 156810 2004-11-25	GERMAN MACHINERIES CORPORATION v. EDDIE D. ENDAYA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In its second assigned error, petitioner would have us review the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC. Settled is the rule that the findings of the Labor Arbiter, when affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous. It is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below.[21] The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[22] We find none of these exceptions in the present case.
	GR No. 133805 2004-06-29	AGUSTINA SENO TAN v. PACITA GANLAG TAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Bolinao Security and Investigation Service, Inc. vs. Toston,[10] we held that "the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts." These exceptions are not present here.
	GR No. 148738 2004-06-29	MITSUBISHI MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION v. CHRYSLER PHILIPPINES LABOR UNION CALLEJO, SR., J.
An employee cannot be dismissed except for just or authorized cause as found in the Labor Code and after due process.[33] The following grounds would justify the dismissal of an employee: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of the employer or representative in connection with his work;
	GR No. 147473 2004-03-30	ACD INVESTIGATION SECURITY AGENCY v. PABLO D. DAQUERA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
First, in Bolinao Security and Investigation Service, Inc. vs. Toston[4], we emphasized that "it is incumbent upon the employer to prove by the quantum of evidence required by law that the dismissal of an employee is not illegal, otherwise, the dismissal would be unjustified." Petitioner, however, failed to discharge its burden.