Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BEST WEAR GARMENTS v. ADELAIDA B. DE LEMOS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 196249 2014-07-21	ROSE HANA ANGELES v. FERDINAND M. BUCAD DEL CASTILLO, J.
What must be realized, however, is that this Court is not a trier of facts. "[T]he jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again."[26] This principle applies with greater force in labor cases, where this Court has consistently held that findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded great respect and even finality,[27] especially if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and are supported by substantial evidence.[28] "Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination."[29] Factual issues are beyond the scope of this Court's authority to review on certiorari.[30]
	GR No. 177374 2014-07-02	MARIANO JOSE v. ERNESTO M. NOVIDA DEL CASTILLO, J.
Next, as correctly pointed out by the respondents, a review of the instant petition under Rule 45 is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor.[41] Moreover, a petition for review under Rule 45 covers questions of law only.[42] "[T]he jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again."[43]
	GR No. 196142 2014-03-26	VENUS B. CASTILLO v. PRUDENTIALIFE PLANS DEL CASTILLO, J.
When there is a divergence between the findings of facts of the labor tribunals and the CA, there is a need to refer to the record. "It is an established rule that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again. There are, however, recognized exceptions to this rule such as when there is a divergence between the findings of facts of the NLRC and that of the CA."[32]
	GR No. 185549 2013-08-07	VICENTE ANG v. CEFERINO SAN JOAQUIN DEL CASTILLO, J.
When there is a divergence between the findings of facts of the NLRC and that of the CA, there is a need to review the records.[48] In the present case, not only is there a divergence of findings of facts; the conclusions arrived at by the two tribunals are diametrically opposed. For this reason, the doctrine that the findings of specialized administrative agencies or tribunals should be respected must be set aside for a moment.