Court of Appeals has the Power to Review Facts in a Petition For Certiorari under Rule 65

Procedural Issue: Court of Appeals’  Power to Review Facts in a Petition For Certiorari under Rule 65

          Culili argued that the Court of Appeals acted in contravention of applicable law and jurisprudence when it reexamined the facts in this case and reversed the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC in a special civil action for certiorari.

          This Court has already confirmed the power of the Court of Appeals, even on a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65,[32] to review the evidence on record, when necessary, to resolve factual issues:

          The power of the Court of Appeals to review NLRC decisions via Rule 65 or Petition for Certiorari has been settled as early as in our decision in St. Martin Funeral Home v. National Labor Relations Commission.  This Court held that the proper vehicle for such review was a Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, and that this action should be filed in the Court of Appeals in strict observance of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts. Moreover, it is already settled that under Section 9 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic Act No. 7902[10] (An Act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, amending for the purpose of Section Nine of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 as amended, known as the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980), the Court of Appeals — pursuant to the exercise of its original jurisdiction over Petitions for Certiorari — is specifically given the power to pass upon the evidence, if and when necessary, to resolve factual issues.[33]

While it is true that factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative tribunals, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts, this general rule admits of exceptions.  When there is a showing that a palpable and demonstrable mistake that needs rectification has been committed[34] or when the factual findings were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, these findings may be examined by the courts.[35]

In the case at bench, the Court of Appeals found itself unable to completely sustain the findings of the NLRC thus, it was compelled to review the facts and evidence and not limit itself to the issue of grave abuse of discretion.

With the conflicting findings of facts by the tribunals below now before us, it behooves this Court to make an independent evaluation of the facts in this case.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/165381.htm

Advertisements

About Erineus

Born on December 28, 1965, Surallah, South Cotabato, Southern Mindanao, Philippines.
This entry was posted in Certiorari Under Rule 65, Court of Appeals, Labor Law and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s