Jurisprudence on findings of fact of labor officials

Norkis Trading Corp. v. Buena Vista, et al., G.R. No. 182018, October 10, 2012

On this matter, the settled rule is that factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have
acquired expertise in matters within their jurisdiction, are generally accorded not only respect but even
finality by the courts when supported by substantial evidence, i.e., the amount of relevant evidence
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. We emphasize,
nonetheless, that these findings are not infallible. When there is a showing that they were arrived at
arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record, they may be examined by the courts. The CA can
then grant a petition for certiorari if it finds that the NLRC, in its assailed decision or resolution, has
made a factual finding that is not supported by substantial evidence. It is within the jurisdiction of the
CA, whose jurisdiction over labor cases has been expanded to review the findings of the NLRC.

Bay Heaven, Inc. et al., v. Abuan, et al., G.R. No. 160859, July 30, 2008

In the present case, petitioners' pieces of evidence of the alleged contract of lease, payroll sheets, and
quitclaims were all verifiable in the normal course of inspection and, granting that they were not
examined by the labor inspector, they have nevertheless been thoroughly examined by the Regional
Director and the DOLE Secretary. For these reasons, the exclusion clause of Art. 128(b) does not apply.

In addition, the findings of the said officers on the invalidity or low probative value of these documents
are findings of a factual nature which this Court will accord with great respect.

People’s Broadcasting v. The Secretary of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No. 179652, May 8, 2009

As a general rule, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. This applies with greater force in cases before
quasi-judicial agencies whose findings of fact are accorded great respect and even finality. To be sure,
the same findings should be supported by substantial evidence from which the said tribunals can make
its own independent evaluation of the facts. Likewise, it must not be rendered with grave abuse of
discretion; otherwise, this Court will not uphold the tribunals conclusion.[20] In the same manner, this
Court will not hesitate to set aside the labor tribunals findings of fact when it is clearly shown that they
were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record or when there is showing of fraud or
error of law.

South Cotabato Communications Corp., et al. v. Sto. Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 217575, June 15,
2016

Sumifru (Philippines) Corp. v. Nagkahiusang Mamumuo sa Suyapa Farm, G.R. No. 202091, June 7, 2017

findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies are entitled to great respect when they are supported by
substantial evidence and, in the absence of any showing of a whimsical or capricious exercise of
judgment, the factual findings bind the Court