Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 197763 2015-12-07	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM VELASCO JR., J.
As to Solidum's claim of denial of due process, such issues are factual in nature. This Court, not being a trier of facts, will not pass upon such issues, as ruled in Nahas v. Olarte:[23]
	GR No. 175795 2015-06-22	NORMILITO R. CAGATIN v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
At first glance, it is obvious that the petition prays for this Court to conduct a re-examination of the facts and evidence on record, a task which is not the Supreme Court's, but the NLRC's and the Court of Appeals' function to perform. Basic is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts and this rule applies with greater force in labor cases.[43] Questions of fact are for the labor tribunals to resolve.[44] It is elementary that the scope of this Court's judicial review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is confined only to errors of law and does not extend to questions of fact.[45]
	GR No. 196357 2015-04-20	HEIRS OF LATE DELFIN DELA CRUZ v. PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS DEL CASTILLO, J.
However, in the Rejoinder later filed by him with the same tribunal, he drastically changed such theory by claiming that he instead suffers from MPNST.[42] "It has been held that a party will not be allowed to make a mockery of justice by taking inconsistent positions which, if allowed, would result in brazen deception."[43]