This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-02-12 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner poses a question of fact which is beyond this Court's power to review. This Court's jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the Court of Appeals. We reiterate the oft-repeated and fully established rule that findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, especially when they are in agreement with those of the trial court, are accorded not only respect but even finality, and are binding on this Court. Barring a showing that the findings complained of were devoid of support, they must stand. For this Court is not expected or required to examine or refute anew the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the parties. The trial court, having heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor and manner of testifying, is admittedly in a better position to assess their credibility. [18] We cannot weigh again the merits of their testimonies. | |||||
|
2008-04-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The first issue involves a question of fact which the Court is not at liberty to review. Our jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the Court of Appeals.[14] Not being a trier of facts, the Court cannot re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of evidence presented to the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the Court of Appeals, which formed the basis of the questioned decision. Indeed, when their findings are in absolute agreement, the same are accorded not only respect but even finality as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[15] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A close scrutiny of the issue will show that what petitioner asks of this Court is to review certain factual questions, which this Court is not empowered to do. This Court's jurisdiction is generally limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the Court of Appeals.[14] | |||||