This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Nevertheless, the Court has enumerated several exceptions to this rule: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the admissions of both parties.[19] Here, one of the exceptions exists - that the findings of the CA are contrary to those of the NLRC and the LA. They obviously differ in their appreciation of the evidence in determining the propriety of Navaja's dismissal. To finally resolve the dispute, the Court deems it proper to tackle the factual question presented. | |||||