You're currently signed in as:
User

ANTONIO LITONJUA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

2012-02-07
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Administrative findings of fact are accorded great respect, and even finality when supported by substantial evidence.  However, when it can be shown that administrative bodies grossly misappreciated evidence of such nature as to compel a contrary conclusion, this Court has not hesitated to reverse their factual findings.[25]  As this Court held in Litonjua v. Court of Appeals:[26]
2003-12-05
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Tomas Alonso's ownership and possession lasted from the 1910's to the late 1930's. But no Transfer Certificate of Title appears to have been issued in his name. The majority Decision held that the final deed of sale "was not registered with the Registry of Deeds because of lack of technical requirements, among them, the approval of the deed of sale by the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, as required by law.[15] This finding, however, is contradicted by the express finding of the Court of Appeals that the said document "was submitted for registration, but for reasons undisclosed by the records, he was not issued a TCT."[16] This factual finding of the Appellate Court should prevail, there being no mention in the majority Decision of the presence of any of the circumstances warranting a review of the evidence.[17]
2003-02-17
QUISUMBING, J.
As a final salvo, petitioners urge us to review the factual findings of the DAR Secretary. Settled is the rule that factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by certiorari, as a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only to questions of law. [27] Moreover, it is doctrine that the "errors" which may be reviewed by this Court in a petition for certiorari are those of the Court of Appeals,[28] and not directly those of the trial court or the quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer which rendered the decision in the first instance. Finally, it is settled that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if such findings are supported by substantial evidence,[29] a situation that obtains in this case. The factual findings of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who, by reason of his official position, has acquired expertise in specific matters within his jurisdiction, deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be altered, modified or reversed.
2002-08-22
QUISUMBING, J.
verifiable from the records. Well established is the principle that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, provided such findings are supported by substantial evidence,[13] as in this case. Graft Investigation Officer I Jovito A. Coresis, Jr., of said Office gave weight to the counter-affidavit of Dr. Daleon[14] as corroborated by the affidavit of Prof. Concesa P. Lagare,[15] Professor 2 of the College of Education, USP. These affidavits averred that during the graduate school orientation program sometime in July 1995, the university's Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Luz D. Ancheta, declared that special arrangements between a professor and a graduate student may be allowed on a case-to-case basis. Dr. Ancheta made this statement in reply to Dr. Daleon's query on the policy of USP on attendance of graduate school students and whether Dr. Daleon could give grades to students who do not attend classes. In her reply to Dr. Daleon's query, the VPAA even cited her experience when she pursued her doctoral course at UP Los Baños. According to Dr. Ancheta, she was given a special arrangement by one of her professors. She added that she, too, had allowed the same special arrangement for her students at the USP Graduate School. Public respondent also anchored his decision on Article 140 of the University Code, which provides that the rules on attendance of students shall be enforced in all classes subject to the modification by the Dean in the case of graduate students and other courses.