5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly determined the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion in the NLRC decision before it, not on the basis of whether the NLRC decision on the merits of the case was correct. In other words, we have to be keenly aware that the CA undertook a Rule 65 review, not a review on appeal, of the NLRC decision challenged before it. This is the approach that should be basic in a Rule 45 review of a CA ruling in a labor case. In question form, the question to ask is: Did the CA correctly determine whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling on the case? [18] omitted) (emphases and italics supplied; citations In concrete terms, the Court's review of a CA ruling is limited to: (i) ascertaining the correctness of the CA's decision in finding the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion; and (ii) deciding any other jurisdictional error that attended the CA's interpretation or application of the law.[19] In determining the presence or absence of grave abuse of discretion, the Court may examine, on the basis of the parties' presentations, whether the CA correctly determined that at the NLRC level, all the adduced pieces of evidence were considered; no evidence which should not have been considered was considered; and the evidence presented supports the NLRC findings. In this kind of limited review) the Court avoids reviewing a labor case by reweighing the evidence or re-evaluating its sufficiency; the task of weighing or evaluation, as a rule, lies within the NLRC's jurisdiction as an administrative appellate body. If the NLRC ruling has basis in the evidence and the applicable law and jurisprudence, then no grave abuse of discretion exists and the CA should so declare and, accordingly, dismiss the petition. If grave abuse of discretion exists, then the CA must grant the petition and nullify the NLRC ruling, entering at the same time the ruling that is justified under the evidence and the governing law, rules and jurisprudence. In our Rule 45 review, this Court must deny the petition if it finds that the CA correctly acted.[20] The point I am driving at is this: Given the absence of the right to appeal from the decision of the NLRC, the Court should observe the rule on the limitation of its own scope of review under the Rules and recognize the exception - i.e., the Court can undertake an independent factual review- only if there is a jurisdictional error. Unfortunately, this petition is demonstrably not the case to bend the rule and act based on the exception. In this case, the NLRC sustained the factual findings of the LA. Thus, these findings are generally binding on the CA, unless there was a showing that these findings were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. On Moradas' certiorari petition, what the CA primarily re examined is the conclusion reached by elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 17/31