Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANUEL MIRALLES v. SERGIO F. GO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 180141 2011-05-31	RIMANDO A. GANNAPAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As a rule, administrative agencies' factual findings that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court,[41] except only for very compelling reasons.[42] Where the findings of the administrative body are amply supported by substantial evidence, such findings are accorded not only respect but also finality, and are binding on this Court. It is not for the reviewing court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of evidence.[43] We find no cogent reason to deviate from the general rule in this case.
	GR No. 171491 2009-09-04	DR. CASTOR C. DE JESUS v. RAFAEL D. GUERRERO III QUISUMBING, J.
More importantly, an administrative proceeding is different from a criminal case and may proceed independently thereof.[32] Even if respondents would subsequently be found guilty of a crime based on the same set of facts obtaining in the present administrative complaint, the same will not automatically mean that they are also administratively liable.
	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2008-12-18	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE TINGA, J.
Both the Manotoks and the Barques appealed the LRA decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The Barques' petition for review[13] was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66700, while the Manotoks' petition for review[14] was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 66642. The Barques prayed that the LRA be directed to immediately reconstitute the Barque title without being subjected to the condition that the Manotok title should first be cancelled by a court of competent jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Manotoks argued in their own petition that the LRA erred in imputing that the Manotok title was spurious and fake.
	GR NO. 149285 2006-08-30	GODOFREDO MORALES v. SKILLS INTERNATIONAL COMPANY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Furthermore, factual findings of administrative agencies that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by this Court.[27] This is so because of the special knowledge and expertise gained by these quasi-judicial agencies from presiding over matters falling within their jurisdiction.[28] So long as these factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, this Court will not disturb the same.[29]
	GR NO. 152884 2005-09-30	DERICK D. WOODEN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Prefatorily, it must be stated that in petitions for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[27] As a general rule, factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the CSC, that are affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon and generally not reviewable by this Court.[28]
	GR NO. 158758 2005-04-29	P.J. LHUILLIER INC. v. NLRC CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Elementary is the principle that this court is not a trier of facts. Judicial review of labor cases does not go beyond the evaluation of the sufficiency of the evidence upon which its labor officials' findings rest.[21] As such, the findings of facts and conclusion of the NLRC are generally accorded not only great weight and respect but even clothed with finality and deemed binding on this Court as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[22] We find no basis for deviating from the aforestated doctrine without any clear showing that the findings of the labor arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals, are bereft of sufficient substantiation. "Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is limited to reviewing only errors of law, not of fact, unless the factual findings complained of are completely devoid of support from the evidence on record or the assailed judgment is based on a gross misapprehension of facts."[23] What is more, factual findings of quasi-judicial agencies like the NLRC, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are conclusive upon the parties and binding on this Court.[24]
	GR NO. 153894 2005-02-16	ALEX A. BITENG v. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR PANGANIBAN, J.
Administrative agencies' factual findings that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon and generally not reviewable by this Court.[16] We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the appellate court, as these are amply supported by the evidence on record.