This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-09-14 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The one-paragraph pronouncement of the CA that Cataquiz had authority to perform the acts complained of is grossly insufficient to overturn the determination by PAGC that he should be punished for acts prejudicial to the LLDA committed during his service as General Manager of the said agency. It should be emphasized that findings of fact of administrative agencies will not be interfered with and shall be considered binding and conclusive upon this Court provided that there is substantial evidence to support such findings.[29] Substantial evidence has been defined as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion"[30] or "evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs."[31] | |||||