This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-12-04 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The well-entrenched rule in this jurisdiction is that only questions of law may be entertained by this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. This rule, however, is not absolute and admits certain exceptions, such as when the petitioner persuasively alleges that there is insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support the factual findings of the tribunal or court a quo,[12] as Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court states in express terms that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established only if supported by substantial evidence.[13] | |||||
|
2012-12-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field.[18] Nor do we substitute our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible."[19] The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court.[20] | |||||