This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-04-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As it is, the question raised in this recourse is basically one of fact. Hornbook is the rule that in a petition for review, only errors of law may be raised.[14] Furthermore, factual findings of administrative agencies that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court. This is so because of the specialized knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial agencies from presiding over matters falling within their jurisdiction. So long as these factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, this Court will not disturb the same.[15] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Further, deference to the expertise acquired by the labor tribunal and the limited scope granted the Court in the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction restrain any probe into the correctness of the NLRC's evaluation of evidence.[39] Oft-repeated is the rule that appellate courts accord the factual findings of the labor tribunal not only respect but also finality when supported by substantial evidence,[40] as in the instant case. Thus, we find no reversible error in the CA's ruling affirming the NLRC's decision, with the exception again of the aforesaid 149 claimants. | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In the instant case, we find that the labor tribunal did not arbitrarily disregard or misapprehend the evidence. Its finding that respondent was validly dismissed is likewise warranted by substantial evidence. Thus, we agree with petitioner's stance that the findings of the LA, as affirmed by the NLRC, should not have been set aside by the appellate court. Deference to the expertise acquired by the labor tribunal and the limited scope granted in the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction restrain any probe into the correctness of the LA's and the NLRC's evaluation of evidence.[42] | |||||