sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2012/august2012/181180.pdf
"x x x.
The power of the Court of Appeals to review the evidence on record even on a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 has already been confirmed by this Court in several cases, viz:
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.
In Culili v. Eastern Telecommunications Philippines, Inc., this Court explained:
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 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.
A perusal of the challenged decision before us will reveal that the Court of Appeals actually sustained the factual findings of the tribunals below. However, it found itself unable to affirm their rulings, in light of the applicable law on the matter. Thus, it was compelled to go beyond the issue of grave abuse of discretion.
x x x"
