On the CA’s Review of the NLRC’s Factual Findings
We agree with the petitioners that as a rule, the CA cannot undertake a re-assessment of the evidence presented in the case in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.[29] However, the rule admits of exceptions. In Mercado v. AMA Computer College-Parañaque City, Inc.,[30] we held that the CA may examine the factual findings of the NLRC to determine whether or not its conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, whose absence justifies a finding of grave abuse of discretion. We ruled:
We agree with the petitioners that, as a rule in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the CA does not assess and weigh each piece of evidence introduced in the case. The CA only examines the factual findings of the NLRC to determine whether or not the conclusions are supported by substantial evidence whose absence points to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. In the recent case of Protacio v. Laya Mananghaya & Co., we emphasized that:
As a general rule, in certiorari proceedings under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the appellate court does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the Labor Arbiter and the NLRC based their conclusion. The query in this proceeding is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its decision. However, as an exception, the appellate court may examine and measure the factual findings of the NLRC if the same are not supported by substantial evidence. The Court has not hesitated to affirm the appellate court’s reversals of the decisions of labor tribunals if they are not supported by substantial evidence. [31] (italics and emphasis supplied; citation omitted)
As discussed below, our review of the records and of the CA decision shows that the CA erred in ruling that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in awarding the petitioners ten percent (10%) attorney’s fees without basis in fact and in law. Corollary to the above-cited rule is the basic approach in the Rule 45 review of Rule 65 decisions of the CA in labor cases which we articulated in Montoya v. Transmed Manila Corporation[32] as a guide and reminder to the CA. We laid down that:
In a Rule 45 review, we consider the correctness of the assailed CA decision, in contrast with the review for jurisdictional error that we undertake under Rule 65. Furthermore, Rule 45 limits us to the review of questions of law raised against the assailed CA decision. In ruling for legal correctness, we have to view the CA decision in the same context that the petition for certiorari it ruled upon was presented to it; we have to examine the CA decision from the prism of whether it correctly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case?[33] (italics and emphases supplied)
In the present case, we are therefore tasked to determine whether the CA correctly ruled that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in awarding 10% attorney’s fees to the petitioners.
