B.14. Central Azucarera de Bais vs. Heirs of Zuelo.pdf - SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859 G.R No 215314 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS and ANTONIO STEVEN

B.14. Central Azucarera de Bais vs. Heirs of Zuelo.pdf -...

This preview shows page 1 - 4 out of 36 pages.

8/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859 1/36 G.R. No. 215314. March 14, 2018. * CENTRAL AZUCARERA DE BAIS and ANTONIO STEVEN L. CHAN, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF ZUELO APOSTOL, respondents. Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on Certiorari; The general rule is that only questions of law are review- _______________ * SECOND DIVISION. 143 VOL. 859, MARCH 14, 2018 143 Central Azucarera de Bais vs. Heirs of Zuelo Apostol
Image of page 1
8/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859 2/36 able by the Supreme Court (SC); Exceptions.— The general rule is that only questions of law are reviewable by the Court. This is because it is not a trier of facts; it is not duty-bound to analyze, review, and weigh the evidence all over again in the absence of any showing of any arbitrariness, capriciousness, or palpable error. Thus, factual findings of administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, including labor tribunals, are accorded much respect by the Court as they are specialized to rule on matters falling within their jurisdiction especially when these are supported by substantial evidence. In labor cases, this doctrine applies with greater force as questions of fact presented therein are for the labor tribunals to resolve. The Court, however, permitted a relaxation of this rule whenever any of the following circumstances is present: (1) [W]hen the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to that of the trial court; (8) when the findings 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 petitioner’s main and reply briefs, are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and
Image of page 2
8/29/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 859 3/36 contradicted by the evidence on record; or (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. Labor Law; Termination of Employment; Right to be Heard; Words and Phrases; “Ample opportunity to be heard” means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit evidence in support of his defense, whether in a hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way.— In Perez , the Court formulated the following guiding principles in connection with
Image of page 3
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 36 pages?

  • Winter '17
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes