Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DIAMOND MOTORS CORPORATION v. CA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 171189 2011-03-09	LORES REALTY ENTERPRISES v. VIRGINIA E. PACIA MENDOZA, J.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that the issues raised in this petition are questions of fact which are not proper subjects of an appeal by certiorari. Well-settled is the rule that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised before this Court.[13] A disharmony between the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, however, opens the door to a review by this Court.Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. Moreover, when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and re-examine the questioned findings.[14]
	GR No. 182299 2010-02-22	WILFREDO M. BARON v. NLRC VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In this case, the Labor Arbiter found that petitioners Aristeo Puzon, Dominador Gemino, Bernard Mangsat, Ramil Cayago, Barry Anthony Baron, Cynthia Junatas, Marife Ballesca and Lourdes Rabago were illegally dismissed. The NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter and reversed the latter's findings. On appeal, the appellate court concurred with the findings of the NLRC. In view of the discordance between the findings of the Labor Arbiter, on one hand, and the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, on the other, there is a need for the Court to review the factual findings and the conclusions based on the said findings. As this Court held in Diamond Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals: [28]
	GR NO. 179807 2009-07-31	RAMY GALLEGO v. BAYER PHILIPPINES CARPIO MORALES, J.
Only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the appellate court's decisions,[19] and the question of whether an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of fact.[20] Be that as it may, when, as here, the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[21]
	GR NO. 155731 2007-09-03	LOLITA LOPEZ v. BODEGA CITY AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
While it is a settled rule that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of CA decisions,[7] there are well-recognized exceptions to this rule, as in this case, when the factual findings of the NLRC as affirmed by the CA contradict those of the Labor Arbiter.[8] In that event, it is this Court's task, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, to re-evaluate and review the factual issues by looking into the records of the case and re-examining the questioned findings.[9]
	GR NO. 165476 2006-03-10	AGRIPINO V. MOLINA v. PACIFIC PLANS CALLEJO, SR., J.
In this case, the Labor Arbiter declared that there is substantial evidence on record warranting the dismissal of petitioner as Assistant Vice President for serious misconduct in office, fraud or willful breach of trust and confidence. The NLRC disagreed with the Labor Arbiter and reversed the latter's findings. The CA, for its part, concurred with the findings of the Labor Arbiter. In view of the discordance between the findings of the Labor Arbiter and the CA on one hand, and the NLRC on the other, there is a need for the Court to review the factual findings and the conclusions based on the said findings. As this Court held in Diamond Motors Corporation v. Court of Appeals:[65]
	GR NO. 166379 2005-10-20	LAKPUE DRUG v. MA. LOURDES BELGA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Time and again, we have recognized the right of employers to dismiss employees by reason of loss of trust and confidence. However, we emphasize that such ground is premised on the fact that the employee concerned holds a position of responsibility or trust and confidence.[12] In order to constitute a just cause for dismissal, the act complained of must be "work-related" such as would show the employee concerned to be unfit to continue working for the employer.[13] More importantly, the loss of trust and confidence must be based on the willful breach of the trust reposed in the employee by his employer. A breach of trust is willful if it is done intentionally, knowingly and purposely, without justifiable excuse, as distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently.[14]
	GR NO. 154315 2005-05-09	PHILIPPINE PIZZA v. KIM M. BUNGABONG QUISUMBING, J.
Long settled is the rule that this Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence.[16] Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible, and we will set these aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness.[17]
	GR No. 142759 2004-11-10	PHILTREAD TIRE v. ALBERTO VICENTE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
As gleaned from the above minutes, it is not clear that respondent urged or forced Avis to increase his service fee by P1,000.00 and to give the amount to him (respondent). In fact, Avis is not certain whether respondent was really serious when he allegedly told him (Avis) to increase his service fee to P4,800.00. We thus hold that petitioner failed to prove its charge by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[6]
	GR No. 158255 2004-07-08	MANILA WATER COMPANY v. HERMINIO D. PENA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of fact.[10] As a rule, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and this applies with greater force in labor cases. Hence, factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court.[11] However, a disharmony between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission opens the door to a review thereof by this Court. Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. Moreover, when the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission contradict with those of the labor arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[12]