5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly SCRA 406, 423; Emcor Incorporatedv. Sienes, G.R. No. 152101, September 8, 2009, 598 SCRA 617, 631-632; and Leonis Navigation Co., Inc. v. Villamater, supra note 8, at 192. [11] 356 Phil. 811, 814-815 (1998). The Court said: Before proceeding further into the merits of the case at bar, the Court feels that it is now exigent and opportune to reexamine the functional validity and systemic practicability of the mode of judicial review it has long adopted and still follows with respect to decisions of the NLRC. The increasing number of labor disputes that find their way to this Court and the legislative changes introduced over the years into the provisions of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 442 (The Labor Code of the Philippines and Batas Pambansa Blg. (B.P. No.) 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980) now stridently call for and warrant a reassessment of that procedural aspect. [underscore ours, italics supplied] [12] See Section 223 of the Labor Code. [13] The reasons why the Supreme Court does not routinely undertake the reexamination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case are: one, it is not really a trier of facts; two, since the Court is not a trier of facts, factual findings of the labor tribunals are generally accorded not only respect, but even finality, and are binding upon the Court when supported by substantial evidence; and three, the ruling that is brought in for judicial review is already a fmal and executory ruling rendered by labor tribunals which are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdiction. [14] General Milling Corporation v. Viajar, G.R. No. 181738, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 598, 606-607. [15] Reyes v. Court of Appeals (Ninth Division), G.R. No. 110207, July 11, 1996, 258 SCRA 651, 659. [16] Madrigal Transport, Inc. v. Lapanday Holdings Corporation, supra note 4, at 134- 135. [17] Supra note 1. [18] Id. at 342-343. [19] See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Arturo Brion in Abbott Laboratories, Philippines, et al. v. Pearlie Ann F. Alcaraz, G.R. No. 192571, July 23,2013. [20] Ibid. [21] Rollo, p. 105. elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 28/31