This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-11-16 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| FI next faults the CA for not giving credence to the factual findings of Labor Arbiter Eduardo Carpio which was affirmed in the NLRC's 20 April 2005 resolution.[36] As may be gleaned from the above disquisition, however, both the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC clearly erred in directing the dismissal of the complaint by unduly shifting the burden of proving the illegality of his dismissal to Granfil. While administrative findings of fact are, concededly, accorded great respect, and even finality when supported by substantial evidence, nevertheless, when it can be shown that administrative bodies grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, this court had not hesitated to reverse their factual findings.[37] Indeed, said rule does not apply when, as here, it is clear that a palpable mistake was committed by the quasi-judicial tribunal which needs rectification.[38] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| one (1) residential lot measuring 244 sq. m. in Pulong Buhangin, Sta. Maria, Bulacan.[52] Given these circumstances, the presumption in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 1379, cannot be automatically extended to the properties that are registered in the names of petitioner's children. The burden is upon the PNP-CIDG, as the complainant against petitioner, to establish that these properties are actually owned by petitioner by proving first that his children had no financial means to acquire the said properties. Fundamental is the rule that the burden of evidence lies with the person who asserts an affirmative allegation.[53] Unfortunately, the PNP-CIDG miserably failed in this regard. | |||||
|
2006-08-15 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that, factual findings of the NLRC, particularly where the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter are in agreement, are deemed binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court.[25] Such factual findings of labor officials are conclusive and binding when supported by substantial evidence, meaning, that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[26] Thus, the Supreme Court will not uphold erroneous conclusions of the NLRC as when it finds insufficient or insubstantial evidence on record to support those factual findings. The same holds true when it is perceived that far too much is concluded, inferred, or deduced from the bare or incomplete facts appearing of record.[27] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Petitioner, however, insists that during his four-day absence, respondent was leading an illegal strike in its sister company. In the first place, there is no showing that the strike held at the Genuino Agro Industrial Development Corporation is illegal. It is a basic rule in evidence that each party must prove his affirmative allegation. Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts the affirmative allegation, the plaintiff or complainant has to prove his affirmative allegations in the complaint and the defendant or the respondent has to prove the affirmative allegation in his affirmative defenses and counterclaim.[35] Since it was petitioner who alleged that such strike is illegal, petitioner must, therefore, prove it. Except for such bare allegation, there is a dearth of evidence in this case proving the illegality of said strike. | |||||
|
2003-12-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| A disharmony between the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission opens the door to a review thereof by this Court.[7] Factual findings of administrative agencies are not infallible and will be set aside when they fail the test of arbitrariness. Moreover, when the findings of the National Labor Relations Commission contradict those of the labor arbiter, this Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[8] | |||||