Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NLRC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 165153 2008-09-23	CARLOS C. DE CASTRO v. LIBERTY BROADCASTING NETWORK BRION, J.
The petitioner submits that the CA erred when it acted as a trial court and interfered without sufficient basis with the NLRC's findings. Citing our ruling in Cosmos Bottling Corporation v. NLRC, et al.,[14] he points out that factual findings of the NLRC, particularly when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter, are accorded respect and finality and should not be disturbed if they are supported by substantial evidence.
	GR No. 157076 2007-09-07	PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION — PIZZA HUT v. EVERGISTO ANTONIO E. SARMIENTO QUISUMBING, J.
For as already well established, the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by the evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts. These exceptions are not present here.[9]
	GR No. 125862 2004-04-15	FRANCISCO CULABA v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
To reiterate, the issue being raised by the petitioners does not involve a question of law, but a question of fact, not cognizable by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45. The jurisdiction of the Court in such a case is limited to reviewing only errors of law, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[19]
	GR No. 139135 2004-01-29	BOLINAO SECURITY v. ARSENIO M. TOSTON SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
The jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings being assailed are not supported by evidence on record or the impugned judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts.[9] These exceptions are not present here.
	GR No. 138256 2003-11-12	CRESENCIANO DUREMDES v. AGUSTIN DUREMDES CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioner asserts that the issue in the present petition "is such that the case needs to be resolved on the merits and should not be dismissed on a mere technicality." The petitioner questions the finding of the Court of Appeals, that no tenancy agreement existed between the respondent and Herminio Tara. This is, however, a factual issue which is beyond the purview of this Court to act upon and resolve. The Court cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the parties and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the trial court and appellate court were correct in regarding them superior credit.[31] The issue being raised by the petitioner does not involve a question of law, but a question of fact, not cognizable by this Court in a petition for review under Rule 45.[32]