This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-06-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The Court emphasizes that the sole function of a writ of certiorari is to address issues of want of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion and it does not include a review of the tribunal's evaluation of the evidence.[18] The findings of fact made by the COMELEC, or by any other administrative agency exercising expertise in its particular field of competence, are binding on the Court.[19] The Court is not a trier of facts;[20] it is not equipped to receive evidence and determine the truth of factual allegations.[21] The Court's function, as mandated by Section 1,[22] Article VIII of the Constitution, is merely to check whether or not the governmental branch or agency has gone beyond the constitutional limits of its jurisdiction, not that it erred or has a different view. In the absence of a showing of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, this Court will have no occasion to exercise its corrective power. It has no authority to inquire into what it thinks is apparent error.[23] | |||||