This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-14 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Next, UIC assails the tripartite committee's computation of the net incremental proceeds, which was affirmed by the Secretary and the Court of Appeals. UIC is essentially asking us to review and evaluate the probative value of the evidence presented below. Suffice it to say that such exercise is not proper in an appeal by certiorari. In a petition for review under Rule 45, only questions of law may be put in issue.[35] We cannot emphasize to litigants enough that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[36] It is not our function to analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.[37] Corollary to this is the doctrine that findings of fact of labor tribunals, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded not only great respect but even finality.[38] In this case, the tripartite committee, the Secretary, and the Court of Appeals were unanimous in disallowing the deductions being claimed by UIC. We find no cogent reason to disturb the same. | |||||
|
2015-07-01 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| An accused, nevertheless, is not precluded in resorting to an appeal by certiorari to the Court via Rule 45 under the Rules of Court. An appeal to this Court by petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law.[34] Moreover, such review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons.[35] | |||||