This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-12-05 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In this case, this Court is effectively being called upon to determine who among the parties is asserting the truth regarding the date the union members were laid-off. Such venture requires the evaluation of the respective pieces of evidence presented by the parties as well as the consideration of "the existence and relevancy of specific surrounding circumstances as well as their relation to each other and to the whole, and the probability of the situation."[34] However, the nature of petitioners' action, a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, renders that very action inappropriate for this Court to take. Only questions of law should be raised in a petition for review under Rule 45.[35] While there are recognized exceptions to that rule, this case is not among them. | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Indeed, "factual findings of labor officials who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality."[25] It is a well-entrenched rule that findings of facts of the NLRC, affirming those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect and due consideration when supported by substantial evidence.[26] We, however, find that the doctrine of great respect and finality has no application to the case at bar. As stated, the Labor Arbiter dismissed respondents' complaints on mere technicality. The NLRC, upon appeal, then came up with three divergent rulings. At first, it remanded the case to the Labor Arbiter. However, in a subsequent resolution, it decided to resolve the case on the merits by ruling that respondents were constructively dismissed. But later on, it again reversed itself in its third and final resolution of the case and ruled in petitioners' favor. Therefore, contrary to Reyes's claim, the NLRC did not, on any occasion, affirm any factual findings of the Labor Arbiter. The CA is thus correct in reviewing the entire records of the case to determine which findings of the NLRC is sound and in accordance with law. Besides, the CA, at any rate, may still resolve factual issues by express mandate of the law despite the respect given to administrative findings of fact.[27] | |||||
|
2011-04-12 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Factual findings made by quasi-judicial bodies and administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality by the appellate courts.[26] This is because administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields.[27] As such, their findings of fact are binding upon this Court unless there is a showing of grave abuse of discretion, or where it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record.[28] | |||||
|
2010-12-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| While the Court finds that the CA, by express mandate of the law, may review the decision of quasi-judicial and administrative agencies and may thus resolve factual issues,[29] the Court, however, disagrees with its resultant decision. | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Once a case is terminated by final judgment, the rights of the parties are settled; hence, a compromise agreement is no longer necessary.[28] Though it may not be prudent to do so, we have seen in a number of cases that parties still considered and had, in fact, executed such agreement. To be sure, the parties may execute a compromise agreement even after the finality of the decision.[29] A reciprocal concession inherent in a compromise agreement assures benefits for the contracting parties. For the defeated litigant, obvious is the advantage of a compromise after final judgment as the liability decreed by the judgment may be reduced. As to the prevailing party, it assures receipt of payment because litigants are sometimes deprived of their winnings because of unscrupulous mechanisms meant to delay or evade the execution of a final judgment.[30] | |||||
|
2010-02-22 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Ordinarily, this Court will not review, much less reverse, the factual findings of the CA, especially where such findings coincide with those of the trial court.[17] The findings of facts of the CA are, as a general rule, conclusive and binding upon this Court, since this Court is not a trier of facts and does not routinely undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case.[18] | |||||
|
2009-07-22 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The above Rule is with certain exceptions as set forth in previous decisions of this Court. As mentioned in Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. Nagrama, Jr.:[40] | |||||