This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-01-29 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In petitions for review on certiorari like the instant case, the Court invariably sustains the unanimous factual findings of the LA, the NLRC and the CA, specially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence and there is no cogent basis to reverse the same, as in this case.[22] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It cannot be gainsaid that respondent was in detention during the entire period of his absence from work and, more importantly, that his situation was known to petitioners. It is of record that in the February 8, 1995 termination notice it issued, petitioners expressly acknowledged that respondent began incurring absences without leave "after [he was] put behind bars due to [his] involvement in a killing incident."[20] It clearly indicates that petitioners knew early on of the situation of respondent. It also explains why in its reply[21] before the LA, appeal[22] before the NLRC and petition for certiorari[23] before CA, petitioners never questioned the truth about respondent's detention. Petitioners' skepticism about respondent's detention is a mere afterthought not proper for consideration in a petition for review under Rule 45, which bars reappraisal of facts not disputed before the lower courts or already settled in their proceedings, and unanimously at that.[24] | |||||