This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-03 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Factual findings of administrative bodies like the CSC are binding on this Court, unless these findings are not supported by substantial evidence.[72] In this case, we rule that the findings of fact and conclusions of the CSC have passed the test of substantiality. It is sufficient that administrative findings of fact are supported by the evidence on record; or, stated negatively, it is sufficient that findings of fact are not shown to be unsupported by evidence.[73] The absence of substantial evidence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, whether direct or circumstantial.[74] | |||||
|
2006-02-06 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it is a time-honored rule that the question of whether there was an implied tenancy and sharing are basically questions of fact and the findings of the Court of Appeals and the Boards a quo are, generally, entitled to respect and nondisturbance, as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[12] And substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial, and where the findings of facts of the agrarian court are supported by substantial evidence, such findings are conclusive and binding on the appellate court.[13] | |||||