Lawyerly

GR No. 199568

2015-06-17

DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY v. HEIRS OF ANDRES G. GAZZINGAN

DEL CASTILLO, J.

Indeed, the causal connection between the illness contracted and the nature of work of a seaman is a factual question, which is not a proper subject of this Court’s review.[37] Nonetheless, considering the conflicting findings of the tribunals below, this Court is constrained to dwell on factual matters involved in this case and reassess the evidence on record.[38]

GR No. 196357

2015-04-20

HEIRS OF LATE DELFIN DELA CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS

DEL CASTILLO, J.

The above provision demonstrates that the 1996 POEA SEC covers all injuries or illnesses occurring in the lifetime of the employment contract.[22] The seafarer only has to prove that his injury or illness was acquired during the term of employment to support his claim for disability benefits and sickness allowance.[23] Verily, his injury or illness need not be shown to be work-related to be compensable under said employment contract.[24]

GR No. 169303

2015-02-11

PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY v. CELSO E. FUENTES

LEONEN, J.

In Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna,[76] this court elaborated on its role to determine whether the Court of Appeals was correct in either granting or dismissing the petition for certiorari: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. (Emphasis in the original)

GR No. 194885

2015-01-26

C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT v. CLEMENTE M. PEREZ

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

We have ruled that under the 1996 POEA-SEC, it is enough that the seafarer proves that his or her injury or illness was acquired during the term of employment to support a claim for disability benefits.[17]

GR No. 204944-45

2014-12-03

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

LEONEN, J.

Career Philippines v. Serna,[127] citing Montoya v. Transmed,[128] is instructive on the parameters of judicial review under Rule 45: As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. In one case, we discussed the particular parameters of a Rule 45 appeal from the CA's Rule 65 decision on a labor case, as follows:

GR No. 204944-45

2014-12-03

FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU

LEONEN, J.

In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[129] (Emphasis in the original)

GR No. 204651

2014-08-06

OUR HAUS REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ALEXANDER PARIAN

BRION, J.

Basic is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition.[36] However, in this case, we are confronted with mixed questions of fact and law that are subsumed under the issue of whether Our Haus complied with the legal requirements on the deductibility of the value of facilities. Strictly, factual issues cannot be considered under Rule 45 except in the course of resolving if the CA correctly determined whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in considering and appreciating the factual issues before it.[37]

GR No. 203472

2014-07-09

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. HENRY M. SIMBAJON

BRION, J.

As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition.[50] A Rule 65 petition for certiorari, on the other hand, focuses on the jurisdictional errors the lower court or tribunal may have committed.[51]

GR No. 195466

2014-07-02

ARIEL L. DAVID v. JOHN G. MACASIO

BRION, J.

In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of the CA's decision rendered under a Rule 65 proceeding, this Court's power of review is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision. This is in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors, which we undertake in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision, we examine the CA decision based on how it determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[32] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[33]

GR No. 192571

2014-04-22

ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Finally, if only to put to rest Alcaraz's misgivings on the manner in which this case was reviewed, it bears pointing out that no "factual appellate review" was conducted by the Court in the Decision. Rather, the Court proceeded to interpret the relevant rules on probationary employment as applied to settled factual findings. Besides, even on the assumption that a scrutiny of facts was undertaken, the Court is not altogether barred from conducting the same. This was explained in the case of Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna[6] wherein the Court held as follows: Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. Nor do we substitute our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible." The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.

GR No. 181719

2014-04-21

EUGENE S. ARABIT v. JARDINE PACIFIC FINANCE

BRION, J.

We emphasize at the outset that the current petition was brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised on appeal under this remedy.[44] This is in contrast with a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65 where the review centers on the jurisdictional errors the lower court or tribunal may have committed.[45]

GR No. 186439

2014-01-15

UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION v. FERDINAND ACIBO

BRION, J.

At this point, we reiterate the settled rule that in this jurisdiction, only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review on certiorari.[38] This Court's power of review in a Rule 45 petition is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any perceived legal errors, which the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision.[39] In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA's Rule 65 decision in a labor case, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined, i.e., the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[40] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[41]

GR No. 178564

2014-01-15

INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required.[50] To note, considering that substantial evidence is an evidentiary threshold, the Court, on exceptional cases, may assess the factual determinations made by the NLRC in a particular case. In Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna,[51] the Court expressed the following view: Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re- evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. Nor do we substitute our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible." The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.

GR No. 178564

2014-01-15

INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

On October 21, 2000, he was admitted to the St. Luke's Medical Center.[7] Subsequently, he was diagnosed to have sustained "thermal burns, upper and lower extremities and abdomen, 2º-3º, 11%" [8] for which he underwent debridement. He was referred to a physical therapist for his subsequent debridement through hydrotherapy. On November 10, 2000, the attending physician, Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II, reported that the respondent's thermal burns were healing well and that they were estimated to fully heal within a period of 3 to 4 months.[9]

GR No. 188267

2013-12-02

BAGUIO CENTRAL UNIVERSITY v. IGNACIO GALLENTE

BRION, J.

In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case taken under Rule 65, we examine the CA decision based on how it determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[21] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[22]

GR No. 175365

2013-10-23

CANDIDO S. GEMINA v. BANKWISE

REYES, J.

"[S]ettled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."[31] "The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court."[32]

GR No. 179607

2013-07-24

CIRILA MANOTA v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORPORATION

PERALTA, J.

And it is the oft-repeated rule that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence.[26] Often described as more than a mere scintilla, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[27] Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegations cannot stand as it will offend due process.[28] Hence, the burden to prove entitlement to disability benefits lies on petitioners, thus they must establish that Enrique had contracted his illness which resulted to his disability during the term of the employment contract.

GR No. 195518

2013-03-20

MAGSAYSAY MARITIME SERVICES v. EARLWIN MEINRAD ANTERO F. LAUREL

MENDOZA, J.

The case of Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna[38] may be relevant. In the said case, the Court sustained the award of disability benefits and held: The causal connection the petitioners cite is a factual question that we cannot touch in Rule 45. The factual question is also irrelevant to the 1996 POEA-SEC. In Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission, we expressly declared that illnesses need not be shown to be work-related to be compensable under the 1996 POEA-SEC, which covers all injuries or illnesses occurring in the lifetime of the employment contract. We contrast this with the 2000 POEA-SEC which lists the compensable occupational diseases. Even granting that work-relatedness may be considered in this case, we fail to see, too, how the idiopathic character of toxic goiter and/or thyrotoxicosis excuses the petitioners, since it does not negate the probability, indeed the possibility, that Serna's toxic goiter was caused by the undisputed work conditions in the petitioners' chemical tankers. (Underscoring supplied)

GR No. 171664

2013-03-06

BANKARD v. NLRC – FIRST DIVISION

MENDOZA, J.

Well-settled is the rule that "factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence."[24] Furthermore, the factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.[25] When the petitioner, however, persuasively alleges that there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings of the tribunal or court a quo, then the Court, exceptionally, may review factual issues raised in a petition under Rule 45 in the exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.[26]

	GR No. 199568 2015-06-17	DOHLE-PHILMAN MANNING AGENCY v. HEIRS OF ANDRES G. GAZZINGAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
Indeed, the causal connection between the illness contracted and the nature of work of a seaman is a factual question, which is not a proper subject of this Court’s review.[37] Nonetheless, considering the conflicting findings of the tribunals below, this Court is constrained to dwell on factual matters involved in this case and reassess the evidence on record.[38]
	GR No. 196357 2015-04-20	HEIRS OF LATE DELFIN DELA CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS DEL CASTILLO, J.
The above provision demonstrates that the 1996 POEA SEC covers all injuries or illnesses occurring in the lifetime of the employment contract.[22] The seafarer only has to prove that his injury or illness was acquired during the term of employment to support his claim for disability benefits and sickness allowance.[23] Verily, his injury or illness need not be shown to be work-related to be compensable under said employment contract.[24]
	GR No. 169303 2015-02-11	PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY v. CELSO E. FUENTES LEONEN, J.
In Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna,[76] this court elaborated on its role to determine whether the Court of Appeals was correct in either granting or dismissing the petition for certiorari: In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. (Emphasis in the original)
	GR No. 194885 2015-01-26	C.F. SHARP CREW MANAGEMENT v. CLEMENTE M. PEREZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have ruled that under the 1996 POEA-SEC, it is enough that the seafarer proves that his or her injury or illness was acquired during the term of employment to support a claim for disability benefits.[17]
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
Career Philippines v. Serna,[127] citing Montoya v. Transmed,[128] is instructive on the parameters of judicial review under Rule 45: As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition. In one case, we discussed the particular parameters of a Rule 45 appeal from the CA's Rule 65 decision on a labor case, as follows:
	GR No. 204944-45 2014-12-03	FUJI TELEVISION NETWORK v. ARLENE S. ESPIRITU LEONEN, J.
In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[129] (Emphasis in the original)
	GR No. 204651 2014-08-06	OUR HAUS REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ALEXANDER PARIAN BRION, J.
Basic is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition.[36] However, in this case, we are confronted with mixed questions of fact and law that are subsumed under the issue of whether Our Haus complied with the legal requirements on the deductibility of the value of facilities. Strictly, factual issues cannot be considered under Rule 45 except in the course of resolving if the CA correctly determined whether or not the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in considering and appreciating the factual issues before it.[37]
	GR No. 203472 2014-07-09	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION v. HENRY M. SIMBAJON BRION, J.
As a rule, only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition.[50] A Rule 65 petition for certiorari, on the other hand, focuses on the jurisdictional errors the lower court or tribunal may have committed.[51]
	GR No. 195466 2014-07-02	ARIEL L. DAVID v. JOHN G. MACASIO BRION, J.
In this Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari of the CA's decision rendered under a Rule 65 proceeding, this Court's power of review is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any perceived legal errors that the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision. This is in contrast with the review for jurisdictional errors, which we undertake in an original certiorari action. In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision, we examine the CA decision based on how it determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[32] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[33]
	GR No. 192571 2014-04-22	ABBOTT LABORATORIES v. PEARLIE ANN F. ALCARAZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Finally, if only to put to rest Alcaraz's misgivings on the manner in which this case was reviewed, it bears pointing out that no "factual appellate review" was conducted by the Court in the Decision. Rather, the Court proceeded to interpret the relevant rules on probationary employment as applied to settled factual findings. Besides, even on the assumption that a scrutiny of facts was undertaken, the Court is not altogether barred from conducting the same. This was explained in the case of Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna[6] wherein the Court held as follows: Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. Nor do we substitute our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible." The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.
	GR No. 181719 2014-04-21	EUGENE S. ARABIT v. JARDINE PACIFIC FINANCE BRION, J.
We emphasize at the outset that the current petition was brought under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As a rule, only questions of law may be raised on appeal under this remedy.[44] This is in contrast with a petition for certiorari brought under Rule 65 where the review centers on the jurisdictional errors the lower court or tribunal may have committed.[45]
	GR No. 186439 2014-01-15	UNIVERSAL ROBINA SUGAR MILLING CORPORATION v. FERDINAND ACIBO BRION, J.
At this point, we reiterate the settled rule that in this jurisdiction, only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review on certiorari.[38] This Court's power of review in a Rule 45 petition is limited to resolving matters pertaining to any perceived legal errors, which the CA may have committed in issuing the assailed decision.[39] In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA's Rule 65 decision in a labor case, we examine the CA decision in the context that it determined, i.e., the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[40] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[41]
	GR No. 178564 2014-01-15	INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In labor cases, as in other administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as sufficient to support a conclusion is required.[50] To note, considering that substantial evidence is an evidentiary threshold, the Court, on exceptional cases, may assess the factual determinations made by the NLRC in a particular case. In Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna,[51] the Court expressed the following view: Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re- evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. Nor do we substitute our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible." The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.
	GR No. 178564 2014-01-15	INC SHIPMANAGEMENT v. ALEXANDER L. MORADAS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On October 21, 2000, he was admitted to the St. Luke's Medical Center.[7] Subsequently, he was diagnosed to have sustained "thermal burns, upper and lower extremities and abdomen, 2º-3º, 11%" [8] for which he underwent debridement. He was referred to a physical therapist for his subsequent debridement through hydrotherapy. On November 10, 2000, the attending physician, Dr. Natalio G. Alegre II, reported that the respondent's thermal burns were healing well and that they were estimated to fully heal within a period of 3 to 4 months.[9]
	GR No. 188267 2013-12-02	BAGUIO CENTRAL UNIVERSITY v. IGNACIO GALLENTE BRION, J.
In reviewing the legal correctness of the CA decision in a labor case taken under Rule 65, we examine the CA decision based on how it determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it and not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct.[21] In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it.[22]
	GR No. 175365 2013-10-23	CANDIDO S. GEMINA v. BANKWISE REYES, J.
"[S]ettled is the rule that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."[31] "The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court."[32]
	GR No. 179607 2013-07-24	CIRILA MANOTA v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
And it is the oft-repeated rule that whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law should establish his right to the benefits by substantial evidence.[26] Often described as more than a mere scintilla, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[27] Any decision based on unsubstantiated allegations cannot stand as it will offend due process.[28] Hence, the burden to prove entitlement to disability benefits lies on petitioners, thus they must establish that Enrique had contracted his illness which resulted to his disability during the term of the employment contract.
	GR No. 195518 2013-03-20	MAGSAYSAY MARITIME SERVICES v. EARLWIN MEINRAD ANTERO F. LAUREL MENDOZA, J.
The case of Career Philippines Shipmanagement, Inc. v. Serna[38] may be relevant. In the said case, the Court sustained the award of disability benefits and held: The causal connection the petitioners cite is a factual question that we cannot touch in Rule 45. The factual question is also irrelevant to the 1996 POEA-SEC. In Remigio v. National Labor Relations Commission, we expressly declared that illnesses need not be shown to be work-related to be compensable under the 1996 POEA-SEC, which covers all injuries or illnesses occurring in the lifetime of the employment contract. We contrast this with the 2000 POEA-SEC which lists the compensable occupational diseases. Even granting that work-relatedness may be considered in this case, we fail to see, too, how the idiopathic character of toxic goiter and/or thyrotoxicosis excuses the petitioners, since it does not negate the probability, indeed the possibility, that Serna's toxic goiter was caused by the undisputed work conditions in the petitioners' chemical tankers. (Underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 171664 2013-03-06	BANKARD v. NLRC – FIRST DIVISION MENDOZA, J.
Well-settled is the rule that "factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence."[24] Furthermore, the factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.[25] When the petitioner, however, persuasively alleges that there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings of the tribunal or court a quo, then the Court, exceptionally, may review factual issues raised in a petition under Rule 45 in the exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.[26]

CAREER PHILIPPINES SHIPMANAGEMENT v. SALVADOR T. SERNA