Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DANNY MAME v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 188711 2013-07-08	TAN BROTHERS CORPORATION OF BASILAN CITY THROUGH ITS OWNER v. EDNA R. ESCUDERO PEREZ, J.
At the outset, it bears stressing that, in petitions for review on certiorari like the one at bench, the scope of this Court's judicial review of decisions of the CA is generally confined only to errors of law[16] and does not extend to a reevaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which the proper labor tribunal has based its determination.[17] Whether Escudero has abandoned her job or was illegally dismissed are questions of fact better left for determination by quasi-judicial agencies[18] which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters.[19] Corollarily, the rule is settled that the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC, especially when affirmed by the CA, are accorded not only great respect but also finality, and are deemed binding upon this Court so long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[20] Time and again, we have reiterated the dictum that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[21]
	GR Nos. 194490-91 2013-03-20	TRANSOCEAN SHIP MANAGEMENT v. INOCENCIO B. VEDAD VELASCO JR., J.
Anent Inocencio's claim for permanent total disability benefits, its propriety hinges on whether or not his illness was work-related. We find no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the NLRC that Inocencio failed to establish that his illness was work-related. Thus, he is not entitled to claim total permanent disability benefits. This CoUI1has, time and again, held that the "factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court."[21] "It must be stressed that in petitions for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law must be raised"[22] before this Court.
	GR No. 188637 2010-12-15	ARNALDO G. GABUNAS v. SCANMAR MARITIME SERVICES INC. SERENO, J.
We have no compelling reason to deviate from the factual findings of the NLRC stating that petitioner has failed to establish that his illness was work-related. Hence, he is not entitled to claim permanent disability benefits. This Court has, time and again, held that the factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court.[20] This dictum is consistent with the settled rule that under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised before this Court.[21]
	GR No. 171814 2009-05-08	SOUTH DAVAO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. SERGIO L. GAMO TINGA, J.
To constitute abandonment, there must be clear proof of deliberate and unjustified intent to sever the employer-employee relationship. Clearly, the operative act is still the employee's ultimate act of putting an end to his employment.[29] However, an employee who takes steps to protest her layoff cannot be said to have abandoned her work because a charge of abandonment is totally inconsistent with the immediate filing of a complaint for illegal dismissal, more so when it includes a prayer for reinstatement.[30] When Eleonor filed the illegal dismissal complaint, it totally negated petitioner's theory of abandonment.