This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-01-24 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner further avers that the CA abused its discretion when it substituted its own findings for that of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC. It points out that both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that respondents were not terminated from employment, and that this finding is not only entitled to great respect but also given the stamp of finality. Petitioner argues that in the absence of a clear showing that the findings are arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis, it is not for this Court to examine their truth or falsehood. Since the CA did not declare that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC acted arbitrarily in rendering their respective decision and resolutions, such findings should not be disturbed. Petitioner contends that the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are triers of facts on specific matters within their field of expertise. They are in a better position to assess and evaluate the credibility of the contending parties' claims and evidence. Petitioner cites Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. Montemayor,[15] and posits that as far as judicial review of labor cases is concerned, this Court is only limited to issues of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. | |||||