SC; NLRC - CA established facts controlling as a general rule; authorities
The Supreme Court is bound by
the factual findings of the NLRC and the CA. Absent any showing that the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC or the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion or otherwise acted without jurisdiction or in excess of the same, this Court is bound by its findings of facts. Indeed, the records reveal that the questioned decision is duly supported by evidence. Findings of facts of quasijudicial agencies like the NLRC are accorded by this Court not only with respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. This quantum of proof has been satisfied in this case. These are, on the main, factual findings over which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC are most equipped to determine having acquired expertise in the specific matters entrusted to their jurisdiction. [Nueva Ecija Electric Cooperative (NEECO) II v. National Labor Relations Commission, 461 SCRA 169, 184-185. G.R. No. 157603, June 23, 2005.] The well-entrenched rule, especially in labor cases, is that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon
and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding
and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed. xxx This petition mainly involves factual issues, i.e., whether or not there is evidence on record to support the findings of the Labor Arbiter, the NLRC and the Court of Appeals that respondent is entitled to the payment of salary differential and unpaid wages. This calls for a re-examination of the evidence, which the Court cannot entertain. As stated earlier, factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality, and bind the Court when supported by substantial evidence. It is not the Courts function to assess and evaluate the evidence all over again, particularly where the findings of both the Arbiter and the Court of Appeals concur. [G & M (Phils.), Inc. v. Cruz, 456 SCRA 215, 217-220. G.R. No. 140495 April 15, 2005.] At the outset, we must stress that only errors of law are generally reviewed by this Court in petitions for review on certiorari of CA decisions. Questions of fact are not entertained. After all, this Court is not a trier of facts and, in labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force. Factual questions are for labor tribunals to resolve. The findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, are accorded with respect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. Particularly when passed upon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court and will not normally be disturbed. [San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Employees UnionAlliance of Filipino Workers v. San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation, Inc., 430 SCRA
193, 205-206. G.R. 143341 May 28, 2004.]
No.
The Supreme Court is not a
trier of facts. Exceptions to the rule. Well-settled is the rule that this Court is not a trier of facts. When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the CA are conclusive and binding, and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: 1. When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; 2. When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; 3. Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; 4. When the judgment is based on a misappreciation of facts; 5. When the findings of fact are conflicting; 6. When the CA in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; 7. When the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; 8. When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; 9. When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and 10. When the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
None of these exceptions is present in this case. We find that
the Decision of the CA is supported by the required quantum of evidence. [Campos v. Pastrana, 608 SCRA 55, 63-63. G.R. No. 175994, December 8, 2009.]
1995 AO 1 Rules and Procedures Governing The Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands Subject of SequestrationAcquisition by The PCGG......