Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 188464 2015-07-29	ALBERTO J. RAZA v. DAIKOKU ELECTRONICS PHILS. PERALTA, J.
To this Court, Raza's contentions as to the allegedly late filing of respondents' motion with the NLRC are untenable. Verily, the concerns raised are all factual which, under a petition for review under Rule 45, should not have been elevated to this Court for review. This Court is not a trier of facts, and this rule applies in labor cases.[35] The issue in question first came up and was already raised on the appeal with the NLRC, whose disposition of it was already affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In such a situation, the findings of the lower tribunals are no longer to be disturbed, and are even accorded finality,[36] unless the case falls under any of the exceptions that would necessitate this Court's review.[37] The petition does not even allege nor demonstrate that the case is covered by any of these exceptions.
	GR No. 152101 2009-09-08	EMCOR INCORPORATED v. MA. LOURDES D. SIENES PERALTA, J.
It is a settled rule that in the exercise of this Court's power of review, it does not inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence presented, consistent with the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts.[22] A fortiori, this rule applies to labor cases.[23] However, there are recognized exceptions[24] to this rule such as when the findings of fact are conflicting, which is present in this case, thus, a review is in order.