This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-10-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is well settled that the Court is not a trier of facts, and the scope of its authority under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact, which are for labor tribunals to resolve.[12] However, the rule is not cast in stone and admits of recognized exceptions, such as when the factual findings and conclusion of the labor tribunals are contradictory or inconsistent with those of the CA.[13] When there is such a variance in the factual findings, as in this case, it is incumbent upon the Court to re-examine the facts.[14] | |||||