Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHARLIE JAO v. BCC PRODUCTS SALES INC.

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 207010 2015-02-18	MAERSK-FILIPINAS CREWING v. TORIBIO C. AVESTRUZ PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Generally, a re-examination of factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts but reviews only questions of law.[53] Thus, in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law may generally be put into issue. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions.[54] In this case, considering that the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC, on the one hand, and the CA, on the other hand, are contradictory, the general rule that only legal issues may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not apply,[55] and the Court retains the authority to pass upon the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom.[56]
	GR No. 192998 2014-04-02	BERNARD A. TENAZAS v. R. VILLEGAS TAXI TRANSPORT REYES, J.
"[I]n determining the presence or absence of an employer-employee relationship, the Court has consistently looked for the following incidents, to wit: (a) the selection and engagement of the employee; (b) the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and (d) the employer's power to control the employee on the means and methods by which the work is accomplished. The last element, the so-called control test, is the most important element."[34]
	GR No. 186621 2014-03-12	SOUTH EAST INTERNATIONAL RATTAN v. JESUS J. COMING VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The issue of whether or not an employer-employee relationship exists in a given case is essentially a question of fact. As a rule, this Court is not a trier of facts and this applies with greater force in labor cases.[22] Only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court.[23] This rule is not absolute, however, and admits of exceptions. For one, the Court may look into factual issues in labor cases when the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC, and the CA are conflicting.[24] Here, the findings of the NLRC differed from those of the Labor Arbiter and the CA, which compels the Court's exercise of its authority to review and pass upon the evidence presented and to draw its own conclusions therefrom.[25]