1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly certiorari cannot be exercised for the purpose of reviewing the intrinsic correctness of a judgment of the lower court—on the basis either of the law or the facts of the case, or of the wisdom or legal soundness of the decision. Even if the findings of the court are incorrect, as long as it has jurisdiction over the case, such correction is normally beyond the province of certiorari.[55] Errors of judgment and errors of jurisdiction as grounds in availing the appropriate remedy are mutually exclusive.[56] Hence, it is inexcusable for petitioner to state that ''x x x grave abuse of discretion, in certiorari proceedings, contemplates errors in judgment committed in excess of or with lack of jurisdiction"[57] to justify his deplorable lapses in making the proper allegations in the Rule 65 petition it filed with the CA. As regards the present petition, We note that it fundamentally raises errors of judgment allegedly committed by the CA. Indeed, the measure is that as long as the lower courts act within their jurisdiction, alleged errors committed in the exercise of their discretion will amount to mere errors of judgment correctable by an appeal or a petition for review.[58] We thus excuse petitioner's erroneous allegation of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA. This brings Us now to the discussion of the main issue, which is whether the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC when it reversed the LA's Decision and dismissed petitioner's labor complaint. 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 the presence 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, the question 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.[59] The Court does not re-examine conflicting evidence, re-evaluate the credibility of witnesses, nor substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal in determining where the weight of evidence lies or what evidence is credible.[60] However, 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.[61] In his pro forma complaint, petitioner indicated the following causes of action: illegal diminution of benefits, acts of harassment forcing him to resign, receiving threats through text messages, car assignment discrimination, illegal transfer of department, incomplete issuance of uniform, and discrimination of company activities.[62] In ruling that petitioner was constructively dismissed, the LA considered only the circumstances of diminution of benefits pertaining to the withholding of the Caltex card and petitioner's car and driver benefits, and his transfer to another department. She did not discuss the other causes of action.[63] Accordingly, the main issue that was brought on https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65727 6/14