This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-10-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Verily, the factual findings of administrative officials and agencies that have acquired expertise in the performance of their official duties and the exercise of their primary jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.[17] The factual findings of these quasi-judicial agencies, especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Court. The recognized exceptions to this rule are: (1) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (2) when the findings are grounded on speculation; (3) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken; (4) when the judgment of the Court of Appeals is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the factual findings are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case and its findings are contrary to the admissions of the parties; (7) when the Court of Appeals overlooked undisputed facts which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion; (8) when the facts set forth by the petitioner are not disputed by the respondent; and (9) when the findings of the Court of Appeals are premised on the absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record.[18] None of these circumstances is obtaining in this case. | |||||
|
2011-12-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.[14] Section 1 of Rule 45 states that petitions for review on certiorari "shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth." | |||||