Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 178909 2012-10-10	SUPERIOR PACKAGING CORPORATION v. ARNEL BALAGSAY REYES, J.
With regard to the contention that there is no evidence to support the finding that the respondents rendered overtime work and that they worked on their rest day, the resolution of this argument requires a review of the factual findings and the evidence presented, which this Court will not do. This Court is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[17] Hence, where the factual findings of the labor tribunals or agencies conform to, and are affirmed by, the CA, the same are accorded respect and finality, and are binding upon this Court.[18]
	GR No. 165550 2008-10-08	STANDARD CHARTERED BANK v. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK EMPLOYEES UNION LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We see no reversible error in the CA's adoption of said findings of the DOLE. It is elementary that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are accorded not only respect but finality.[23] In a recent case, it was similarly held that where the factual findings of the labor tribunals or agencies conform to, and are affirmed by, the CA, the same are accorded respect and finality, and are binding upon this Court.[24]