Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 169303 2015-02-11	PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY v. CELSO E. FUENTES LEONEN, J.
In addition, if the findings of fact of the Labor Arbiter are in direct conflict with the National Labor Relations Commission, this court may examine the records of the case and the questioned findings in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction.[85]
	GR Nos. 196280 & 196286 2014-04-02	UNIVERSIDAD DE STA. ISABEL v. MARVIN-JULIAN L. SAMBAJON VILLARAMA, JR., J.
We have clarified that the clear import of the aforementioned procedural rule is that the NLRC shall, in cases of perfected appeals, limit itself to reviewing those issues which are raised on appeal. As a consequence thereof, any other issues which were not included in the appeal shall become final and executory.[18]
	GR No. 168317 2011-11-21	DUP SOUND PHILS. v. CA PERALTA, J.
At the outset, the Court finds it proper to reiterate the well-established rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in cases brought before it via Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law.[11] However, one of the admitted exceptions to this rule is where the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the Labor Arbiter, the Court, in the exercise of its equity jurisdiction, may look into the records of the case and reexamine the questioned findings.[12]