This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-04-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, this Court does not review questions of facts in a petition filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court as only questions of law can be raised in such petition. However, this rule is not absolute and without exceptions. In case the factual findings of the tribunals or courts below are in conflict with each oilier, this Court may make its own examination and evaluation of the evidence on record.[19] Here, the LA found that petitioners ought to be awarded permanent disability benefits, sickness allowance, attorney's fees and damages; the NLRC and the CA, on the other hand, ruled otherwise. Hence, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2013-10-23 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| On the propriety of the matters raised by petitioners in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, our ruling in Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Simon Enterprises, Inc.[42] is instructive, to wit: A question of law exists when the doubt or controversy concerns the correct application of law or jurisprudence to a certain set of facts; or when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of the evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted. A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of facts or when the query invites calibration of the whole evidence considering mainly the credibility of the witnesses, the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation. | |||||