The scope of a petition for certiorariin judicial review of labor cases. [ G.R. No. 216716, November 17, 2021 ] • Decisions of the NLRC are reviewable by the CA through Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. • The CA is tasked in the proceeding to ascertain if the NLRC decision merits a reversal exclusively on the basis of thepresence of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Hence, when a CA decision is brought before the Court through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, thequestion of law that must be tackled is whether the CA correctly found that the NLRC acted or did not act with grave abuse of discretion in rendering its challenged decision. • The Court does not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible. • On the other hand, if the factual findings of the LA and the NLRC are conflicting, as in this case, the reviewing court may delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned findings. Under this situation, such conflicting factual findings are not binding on the Court, and we retain the authority to pass on the evidence presented and draw conclusions therefrom.• Within the parameters of the following: (a) when it is necessary to prevent a substantial wrong or to do substantial justice; (b) when the findings of the NLRC contradict those of the LA; and (c) when necessary to arrive at a just decision of the case, the appellate court necessarily has to look at the evidence and make.its own factual determination. • Thus, [in this case], we examine the CA’s finding of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC's grant of Esico's complaint for constructive dismissal. Essentially, we view the appeal before us within the lens of the certiorari jurisdiction of the appellate court in labor cases to determine whether the factual findings of the NLRC are not supported by the evidence on record resulting in grave abuse of discretion. • This Court steps in and exercises its power of review only when on the basis of facts the.inference or conclusion arrived at is manifestly erroneous. [ G.R. No. 216716, November 17, 2021 ] JOSE EDWIN G. ESICO VS. ALPHALAND CORPORATION AND ALPHALAND DEVELOPMENT, INC. ✍️👨‍⚖️ HERNANDO, J. Full text: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/24733/ To keep you posted, 𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐮𝐬! @ https://pastepeso.com/l6eeter5x