This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-08-28 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner used the Discussion/Arguments portion of its petition to refute the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter which was upheld by the NLRC. In particular, petitioner reiterated its position that respondent company and its General Manager committed discriminatory acts against petitioner's members which constituted unfair labor practice; that the termination of employment of petitioner's officers and members was a case of union-busting and unlawful lockout; and, that the said officers and members were unlawfully dismissed from employment and are therefore entitled to reinstatement with full backwages, plus damages and attorney's fees.[36] For petitioner to question the identical findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC is to raise a question of fact. However, it is settled that questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari.[37] Only established or admitted facts can be considered.[38] Romy's Freight Service v. Castro[39] explains the rationale of this rule:The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, more so in the consideration of the extraordinary writ of certiorari where neither questions of fact nor of law are entertained, but only questions of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The sole object of the writ is to correct errors of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. The phrase 'grave abuse of discretion' has a precise meaning in law, denoting abuse of discretion "too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and personal hostility." It does not encompass an error of law. Nor does it include a mistake in the appreciation of the contending parties' respective evidence or the evaluation of their relative weight. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-07-31 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| More importantly, it has already been found that the notice of appeal was filed on time, particularly with respect to private respondent Siapno-Sanchez.[45] To question such finding is to raise a question of fact. However, it is settled that questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari.[46] Only established or admitted facts can be considered.[47] In this connection, it has been established that the copy of the Provincial Adjudicator's decision dated June 27, 1995 was sent by registered mail to and received by private respondent Berma's daughter who lived in another barangay.[48] Such receipt by Berma's daughter cannot be validly considered as service of the Provincial Adjudicator's decision on Berma. Sections 4 and 9, Rule V of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure, which became effective on June 22, 1994, provides:SECTION 4. Service of Pleadings, Notices and Resolutions. a) The party filing the pleading shall serve the opposing party with a copy thereof in the manner provided for in these Rules and proof of such service shall be filed with the records of the case; and | |||||
|
2013-01-09 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Basically, the petitioner asks this Court to overturn the factual findings of the RTC and the CA for alleged misapprehension of evidence. However, "it is settled that questions of fact cannot be raised in an original action for certiorari."[28] Only established or admitted facts can be considered.[29] | |||||
|
2007-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Respondent thereafter filed a petition for review before the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeals.[6] On 16 June 2000, the appellate court reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC and reinstated in toto the MCTC's judgment.[7] | |||||