G.R. No. 208396 - ARIEL A. EBUENGA, VS. SOUTHFIELD AGENCIES, INC., WILHEMSEN SHIP MANAGEMENT HOLDING LTD., AND CAPT. SONNY VALENCIA.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we do not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute the findings of fact of the NLRC, an administrative body that has expertise in its specialized field. Nor do we substitute our "own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible." The factual findings of the NLRC, when affirmed by the CA, are generally conclusive on this Court. [37] Labor Arbiter Savari, the National Labor Relations Commission, and the Court of Appeals are consistent in finding that petitioner's claim of presenting himself for examination is direly unsupported by evidence. The Court of Appeals emphasized that "petitioner's narration of facts is bereft of details as to the alleged report." [38] Petitioner could not even state when he actually wanted to have himself examined. He could neither identify the person he approached for his request nor disclose the exact manner and circumstances of his being rebuffed. [39] Ultimately, petitioner has nothing more than a scant, one-sentence story: he went to Southfield's office, was refused, and had to go to another doctor. Petitioner himself claims that respondents' refusal to have him medically examined was only the last episode in a prolonged conflict. If indeed it was, petitioner must logically be expected to adduce proof, not only of that terminal episode, but of his complete narrative and its many incidents. In this regard, too, petitioner was grossly deficient. Given petitioner's slew of allegations, coupled with his burden of repudiating the uniform findings of the three (3) tribunals, it is glaring that petitioner annexed nothing to his Petition and Reply [40] except the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution. His plea for this Court to overturn the uniform antecedent findings of the three (3) tribunals demands more than attaching a copy of the immediately preceding judgments. Attaching a copy of the assailed judgments to a Rule 45 Petition does not even manage to accomplish any evidentiary purpose. One could hazard that petitioner's scant annexes were included only out of conventional compliance with Rule 45, Section 4 [41] of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure because his Petition would otherwise have been denied outright. [42] It is true that there are exceptions to the rule that Petitions for Review on Certiorari may only be concerned with pure questions of law. [43] But these exceptions are not occasioned by their mere invocation. A party who files a Rule 45 Petition and asserts that his or her case warrants this Court's review of factual questions bears the burden of proving two (2) things. First is the basic exceptionality of his or her case such that this Court must go out of its way to revisit the evidence. Second is the specific factual conclusion that he or she wants this Court to adopt in place of that which was made by the lower tribunals. This dual burden requires a party to not mere