This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-10-25 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The appellate court's conclusion that private petitioners committed particular violations warranting their disqualification from the CARP is based on the MARO report which has not been disputed by all the private petitioners. The MARO who prepared the report enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of her functions. Absent any showing that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in giving evidentiary weight to said report, said factual findings are generally deemed conclusive on this Court, which is not a trier of facts.[13] | |||||
|
2000-06-28 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| In Jacinto v. Court of Appeals,[10] De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals,[11] and Alipat v. Court of Appeals,[12] we upheld our rulings in MPSTA and Bangalisan. Considering the factual circumstances of this case and the doctrine of stare decisis to which we consistently adhere, we find no compelling reason to deviate from our earlier rulings in these related cases. | |||||