This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-09-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, this Court has always accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC when supported by substantial evidence. The reason for this is that quasi-judicial agencies, like the NLRC, have already acquired a unique expertise because their jurisdictions are confined to specific matters.[10] | |||||
|
2007-03-07 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Generally, the Court has always accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact of the CA particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC and are supported by substantial evidence.[5] True this rule admits of certain exceptions as, for example, when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, or the findings of fact are not supported by the evidence on record[6] or are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[7] None of these exceptions, however, has been convincingly shown by petitioners to apply in the present case. Hence, the Court sees no reason to disturb such findings of fact of the CA. | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Case law is that this Court has always accorded respect and finality to the findings of fact of the CA, particularly if they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by substantial evidence.[30] The question of whether respondents are regular or project employees or independent contractors is essentially factual in nature; nonetheless, the Court is constrained to resolve it due to its tremendous effects to the legions of production assistants working in the Philippine broadcasting industry. | |||||