This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-12-07 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Here, the NLRC, affirmed by the CA, made the factual finding that petitioner failed to present evidence sufficiently proving its defense of abandonment of work, so as to make the termination of respondents' employment a valid one. Petitioner should be reminded of the oft-repeated rule that in petitions for review on certiorari, the jurisdiction of this Court is generally limited to reviewing errors of law or jurisdiction. This Court cannot be tasked to analyze or weigh evidence all over again as the evaluation of facts is best left to the lower courts.[6] This was further elaborated in Stanley Fine Furniture v. Gallano,[7] thus:Specifically, in reviewing a CA labor ruling under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, the Court's review is limited to: | |||||