This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-13 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| That DARBMUPCO owns the awarded plantation where the respondent-contractors and respondent-workers were working is immaterial. This does not change the situation of the parties. As correctly found by the CA, DFI, as the principal, hired the respondent-contractors and the latter, in turn, engaged the services of the respondent-workers.[91] This was also the unanimous finding of the SOLE,[92] the LA,[93] and the NLRC.[94] Factual findings of the NLRC, when they coincide with the LA and affirmed by the CA are accorded with great weight and respect and even finality by this Court.[95] | |||||
|
2015-06-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Equally settled is the rule that factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by this Court, more so when they coincide with those of the LA.[26] | |||||