This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-12-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The rule is that a petition for certiorari is available when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.[9] Generally, factual issues are not proper subjects for certiorari which is limited to the issue of jurisdiction and grave abuse of discretion.[10] Grave abuse of discretion is committed when the board, tribunal or officer exercising judicial function fails to consider evidence adduced by the parties.[11] In the present case, the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC disregarded the affidavits of the witnesses against the petitioners. | |||||
|
2004-01-16 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In the Resolution of October 4, 1999,[20] we denied the petition for failure of the petitioners to accompany the same with a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified true copy of the assailed decision. The petitioners filed a new petition primarily on the basis of Philippine Airlines v. Confesor,[21] where this Court held that a petition dismissed under Circular No. 1-88[22] may be filed again as a new petition as long as it is done within the reglementary period. In the Resolution[23] of March 8, 2000, we allowed the re-filing of the petition and required the respondent to comment thereon. | |||||