|
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Findings subject to review
By Dominador A. Almirante
Labor case digest
In a complaint for constructive dismissal asking for separation pay and other benefits, the labor arbiter found for petitioner Fernando Go.
On appeal to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), the decision of the labor arbiter was affirmed with modification deleting the award of attorney's fees. On further appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) annulled and set aside the resolution of the NLRC. The CA found there was no constructive dismissal. Can the findings of the CA be the subject of review by the Supreme Court?
Ruling: Yes.
The above rule, however, is not iron-clad. In Siguan v. Lim, G.R. No. 134665, 19 November 1999, 318 SCRA 725, citing Sta. Maria v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 351 (1998), we enumerated the instances when the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are not deemed conclusive, to wit: (1) when the conclusion is a finding 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 facts are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admission of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those 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 brief are not disputed by the respondent; and when (10) the findings of fact are premised on the supposed evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.
In the instant case, the issue is shrouded by a conflict of factual perception.
We are constrained to review the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, because the conflict falls within the ambit of one of the recognized exceptions to the conclusiveness of its findings, i.e., when its findings of facts contradict those of the lower court, in this case that of the Labor Arbiter and the agency which exercised adjudicative functions over him, the NLRC. (Fernando Go vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158922, May 28, 2004).
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (June 30, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
