This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-09-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In this regard, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which is applied in a suppletory character to cases covered by the NLRC Rules, provides that in all the instances enumerated under the said Rule, where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65.[22] Thus, this Court has held that when the denial of a motion to dismiss is tainted with grave abuse of discretion, the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari may be justified.[23] On the basis of the foregoing, it is clear that the CA has jurisdiction over the special civil action for certiorari filed by private respondent as the latter was able to allege and establish that the denial of its motion to dismiss was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Petitioners are wrong to argue that this Court's directive in G.R. No. 151801 to remand RAB Case No. 06-09-10698-97 to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings deprives the CA of its jurisdiction over private respondent's petition for certiorari. The essence of this Court's ruling in G.R. No. 151801 is simply to require resolution of the factual issue of whether or not Fela Contractor has stepped into the shoes of Castillon and, thus, has taken petitioners in its employ. In other words, this Court called for a prior determination as to who is the real employer of petitioners. This issue, however, was already settled as will be discussed below. | |||||
|
2005-04-28 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| It is a fundamental rule that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari as a mode of appeal under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, such as the one at bar, is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact.[7] The rationale of this rule is founded on the fact that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it is not the proper venue to consider factual issues. It may, however, consider factual matters where the findings of fact complained of are devoid of support by the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on the misapprehension of facts.[8] | |||||