This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has reiterated the well-established rule that findings of fact by the CA are accorded the highest degree of respect, conclusive on the parties, which will generally not be disturbed on appeal.[17] Such findings are likewise binding and conclusive on this Court. Moreover, under the Rules of Court and the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.[18] The jurisdiction of this Court is, therefore, limited only to the review of errors of law allegedly committed by the CA.[19] | |||||
|
2013-03-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| At this juncture, it must be stressed that "[t]echnical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. The application of technical rules of procedure may be relaxed to serve the demands of substantial justice."[52] "[I]t is more in keeping with the objective of rendering substantial justice if we brush aside technical rules rather than strictly apply its literal reading. There [being] no objective reason to further delay this case by insisting on a technicality when the controversy could now be resolved."[53] Moreover, "there is no need to remand this case to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings, as the facts are clear and complete on the basis of which a decision can be made."[54] Based on the foregoing, we find no reason to deprive herein respondent of the accrued salary differential, merit increases and productivity bonuses due her since 2001. | |||||
|
2012-01-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, "the remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contemplates only questions of law and not issues of fact. This rule, however, is inapplicable in cases x x x where the factual findings complained of are absolutely devoid of support in the records or the assailed judgment of the appellate court is based on a misapprehension of facts."[27] Another well-recognized exception to the general rule is when the factual findings of the administrative agency and the Court of Appeals are contradictory.[28] The said exceptions are applicable to the case at bar. | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The first issue deals with technical rules and procedural matters. Well-settled is the rule that technical rules of procedure are not binding in labor cases. [12] In fact, it is the spirit and intention of the Labor Code that labor officials shall use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure. [13] | |||||
|
2007-09-03 |
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] | |||||
|
2006-10-17 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In finding that petitioner was a project employee, both the NLRC and the Court of Appeals relied greatly on the aforementioned contracts. While administrative findings of fact are accorded great respect and even finality when supported by substantial evidence, nevertheless, when it can be shown that administrative bodies grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, this Court will not hesitate to reverse their factual findings.[13] | |||||