Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

HACIENDA FATIMA v. NATIONAL FEDERATION OF SUGARCANE WORKERS-FOOD

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR NO. 164198 2007-06-15	ALAY SA KAPATID INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v. ROMULO DOMINGUEZ QUISUMBING, J.
At the outset, we must stress that in petitions for review, only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court, and in labor cases, this applies with greater force. Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.[10] This rule, however, is not ironclad. Where, as in this case, the issue is shrouded by a conflict of factual perceptions by the lower courts, we are constrained to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals.[11]
	GR Nos. 164684-85 2005-11-11	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. ANTONIO Q. TIAMSON CALLEJO, SR., J.
It is a settled rule that 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.[30] Moreover, in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, the Supreme Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts.[31] However, where there is divergence in the findings and conclusions of the NLRC, on the one hand, from those of the Labor Arbiter and the Court of Appeals, on the other, the Court is constrained to examine the evidence.[32]
	GR NO. 151827 2005-04-29	JOSEFINA BENARES v. JAIME PANCHO TINGA, J.
In contrast, in the case of Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade,[17] respondents performed the same tasks for petitioners every season for several years. Thus, they were considered the latter's regular employees for their respective tasks. The fact that they do not work continuously for one whole year but only for the duration of the season does not detract from considering them in regular employment since in a litany of cases this Court has already settled that seasonal workers who are called to work from time to time and are temporarily laid off during off-season are not separated from service in that period, but merely considered on leave until re-employed.[18]
	GR NO. 140495 2005-04-15	G & M v. EPIFANIO CRUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With regard to the admissibility of the pay slips, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that it was admissible as evidence. As a general rule, the Court is not duty-bound to delve into the accuracy of the NLRC's factual findings in the absence of a clear showing that these were arbitrary and bereft of any rational basis.[17] In the present case, petitioner failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or lack of rational basis on the part of the NLRC.[18]
	GR NO. 150478 2005-04-15	HACIENDA BINO/HORTENCIA STARKE v. CANDIDO CUENCA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Recently, the Court reiterated the same observations in Hacienda Fatima v. National Federation of Sugarcane Workers-Food and General Trade[27] and added that the petitioners in the Mercado case were "not hired regularly and repeatedly for the same phase/s of agricultural work, but on and off for any single phase thereof."
	GR No. 147125 2004-01-14	SHOPPES MANILA v. NLRC CALLEJO, SR., J.
We must stress that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of the CA decisions.[16] Questions of fact are not entertained.[17] The Court is not a trier of facts, and in labor cases; this doctrine applies with greater force. Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve.[18] The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly, when passed upon and upheld by the CA, they are binding and conclusive upon the Court and will not normally be disturbed.[19]