CIRTEK
CIRTEK
CIRTEK
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
657
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
RESOLUTION
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
This resolves the motion for reconsideration and
supplemental motion for reconsideration filed by
respondent, Cirtek Electronics, Inc., of the Court’s Decision
dated November 15, 2010.
Respondent-movant avers that petitioner, in filing the
petition for certiorari under Rule 65, availed of the wrong
remedy, hence, the Court should have dismissed the
petition outright. It goes on to aver that the Court erred in
resolving a factual issue—whether the August 24, 2005
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was validly entered
into—, which is not the office of a petition for certiorari.
Respondent-movant further avers that the MOA1 signed
by the remaining officers of petitioner Union and allegedly
ratified by its members should have been given credence by
the Court.
Furthermore, respondent-movant maintains that the
Secretary of Labor cannot insist on a ruling beyond the
compromise agreement entered into by the parties; and
that, as early as February 5, 2010, petitioner Union had
already filed with the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) a resolution of disaffiliation from the
Federation of Free Workers resulting in the latter’s lack of
personality to represent the workers in the present case.
_______________
659
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
660
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
“This rule provides that the parties may raise only questions of
law, because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Generally,
we are not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence
introduced in and considered by the tribunals below. When
supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of
the CA are conclusive and binding on the parties and are
not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under
any of the following recognized exceptions:
(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises and conjectures;
(2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd
or impossible;
(3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion;
(4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension
of facts;
(5) When the findings of fact 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
admissions of both appellant and appellee;
(7) When the findings are contrary to those of the trial
court;
(8) When the findings of fact 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
petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondents; and
(10) When the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by
the evidence on record.” (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
_______________
662
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
xxx
5 Vide Manila Electric Company v. Quisumbing, G.R. No. 127598, February 22,
2000, 326 SCRA 172 citing Mindanao Terminal and Brokerage Service, Inc. v.
Confesor, 338 Phil. 671; 272 SCRA 161 (1997).
6 DOLE records, pp. 303-305; 129-250; 32-48.
7 DOLE records, pp. 306-307.
8 G.R. No. 142824, December 19, 2001, 372 SCRA 658.
663
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
very rigid and technical sense in labor cases. Hence, the Labor
Arbiter is not precluded from accepting and evaluating evidence
other than, and even contrary to, what is stated in the CBA.”
(emphasis and underscoring supplied)
_______________
664
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
665
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/11
9/16/22, 10:46 AM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 650
_______________
10 Employee’s Union of Bayer Philippines, et. al. v. Bayer Philippines, et. al.,
G.R. No. 162943, December 6, 2010, 636 SCRA 472.
11 G.R. No. 118562 July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 371.
666
https://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000183442d3066b0d9408a000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/11