This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2006-03-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner has raised a factual issue, i.e., whether Anita was illegally dismissed, which is not proper in a petition for review. We have consistently ruled that it is not the function of this Court to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence again, our jurisdiction being generally limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the trial court or administrative agency.[19] Nevertheless, since the factual findings of the Court of Appeals and the Labor Arbiter are at variance with those of the NLRC, we resolve to review the records and the evidence presented by the parties.[20] | |||||
|
2005-11-11 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is a settled rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality.[30] Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts.[31] However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence.[32] | |||||