This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-02-06 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| In La Union Cement Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission,[30] we stressed that: As an overture, clear and unmistakable is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Just as well entrenched is the doctrine that pure issues of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal by certiorari under | |||||
|
2011-01-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This was emphasized in La Union Cement Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] thus: As an overture, clear and unmistakable is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Just as well entrenched is the doctrine that pure issues of fact may not be the proper subject of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court as this mode of appeal is generally confined to questions of law. We therefore take this opportunity again to reiterate that only questions of law, not questions of fact, may be raised before the Supreme Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. This Court cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the petitioners in the lower courts and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the court a quo and the appellate court were correct in their appreciation of the evidence.[24] | |||||