This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-04-19 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In fine, although strict compliance with the rules for perfecting an appeal is indispensable for the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and expeditious dispatch of judicial business, strong compelling reasons such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a grave miscarriage may nevertheless warrant the suspension of the rules.[33] In the instant case, we are constrained to disregard procedural rules because we cannot in conscience allow the government to collect deficiency VAT from petitioner considering that the government has no right at all to collect or to receive the same. Besides, dismissing this case on a mere technicality would lead to the unjust enrichment of the government at the expense of petitioner, which we cannot permit. Technicalities should never be used as a shield to perpetrate or commit an injustice. | |||||
|
2008-09-30 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| The determination of the current rate from which to compute the allowable increase of 60% is a question of fact that cannot be properly threshed out before this COurt. The NWRB must be given an opportunity to make a factual finding with respect to this question. This Court accords the factual findings of administrative agencies with utmost consideration because of the special knowledge and experties gained by these quasi-judicial tribunals from handling specific matters falling under their jurisdiction.[25] Considering that the LWUA confirmed the Rate Shedule of Approved Water Rates for Merida Water District, a schedule that contains different rates that gradually increase, the determination of whether the computation of the percentage increase aomplies with the 60% limitaion is a factual matter best left to the competence of the NWRB. | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, factual findings of administrative agencies that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court.[27] This is so because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial agencies from presiding over matters falling within their jurisdiction.[28] So long as these factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, this Court will not disturb the same.[29] | |||||
|
2004-08-27 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| This Court has invariably ruled that the right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of the law. The party who seeks to avail of the same must comply with the requirements of the Rules. Failing to do so, the right to appeal is lost.[13] | |||||