This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| More importantly, this Court cannot give special treatment to petitioner. In our past cases, this Court already held that the failure of the counsel to file the required position papers before the LA is not a ground to declare that petitioner had been deprived of due process; and is not a cause to conclude that the proceedings a quo had been null and void.[26] In Building Care Corporation v. Macaraeg,[27] this Court thoroughly explained that: It is, however, an oft-repeated ruling that the negligence and mistakes of counsel bind the client. A departure from this rule would bring about never-ending suits, so long as lawyers could allege their own fault or negligence to support the client's case and obtain remedies and reliefs already lost by the operation of law. The only exception would be, where the lawyer's gross negligence would result in the grave injustice of depriving his client of the due process of law. In this case, there was no such deprivation of due process. Respondent was able to fully present and argue her case before the Labor Arbiter. She was accorded the opportunity to be heard. | |||||
|
2014-07-21 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| What must be realized, however, is that this Court is not a trier of facts. "[T]he jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases brought before it from the CA via Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is generally limited to reviewing errors of law. This Court is not a trier of facts. In the exercise of its power of review, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding and consequently, it is not our function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again."[26] This principle applies with greater force in labor cases, where this Court has consistently held that findings of fact of the NLRC are accorded great respect and even finality,[27] especially if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and are supported by substantial evidence.[28] "Judicial review by this Court does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination."[29] Factual issues are beyond the scope of this Court's authority to review on certiorari.[30] | |||||
|
2014-06-02 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed, at the outset, that the resolution of the issue of whether Nahas acted for and in behalf of PETRA and/or Royal Dream in deploying Olarte abroad is a question of fact. "Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and this doctrine applies with greater force in labor cases. Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve. Only errors of law are generally reviewed in petitions for review on certiorari criticizing decisions of the CA."[22] Also "[s]ettled is the rule that the findings of the [Labor Arbiter], when affirmed by the NLRC and the CA, are binding on the Supreme Court, unless patently erroneous."[23] In this case, the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are one in their factual conclusion that Nahas, acting for and in behalf of PETRA and Royal Dream, interviewed Olarte, caused her to sign an employment contract, and facilitated and made possible her deployment abroad. The Court is, therefore, not duty-bound to inquire into the accuracy of this factual finding, particularly in this case where there is no showing that it was arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis.[24] | |||||
|
2013-10-17 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Given the circumstances of the case, the Court's affirmance in the Decision dated September 18, 2009 of the NLRC's strict application of the rule on appeal bonds then demands a re-examination. Again, the emerging trend in our jurisprudence is to afford every party-litigant the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the constraints of technicalities.[86] Section 2, Rule I of the NLRC Rules of Procedure also provides the policy that "[the] Rules shall be liberally construed to carry out the objectives of the Constitution, the Labor Code of the Philippines and other relevant legislations, and to assist the parties in obtaining just, expeditious and inexpensive resolution and settlement of labor disputes."[87] | |||||