This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2004-07-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Still, petitioner claims that he was not afforded due process so that his dismissal from employment should be declared invalid. This contention deserves scant consideration. The Court of Appeals held that "the records reveal that petitioner was afforded the twin requirements of notice and hearing and was likewise given the opportunity to defend himself before the investigating committee." We find no reason to set aside these factual findings of the Court of Appeals as they are supported by evidence on record. Besides, we may not review the appellate court's findings of fact in an appeal via certiorari,[14] since as a rule, the Supreme Court's review is limited to errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court.[15] Judicial review of labor cases does not go as far as to evaluate the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and National Labor Relations Commission based their determinations.[16] | |||||
|
2001-03-08 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[12] unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule.[13] | |||||
|
2001-03-08 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| The findings of fact of the Court of Appeals supported by substantial evidence are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court,[12] unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions to the rule.[13] | |||||
|
2001-03-08 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner has failed to prove that the case falls within the exceptions.[14] | |||||