This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2008-03-04 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The doctrine of conclusive finality and doctrine of great respect and finality both apply to factual findings of administrative agencies in the exercise of their quasi-judicial function. The former has no evidentiary requirement while the latter must be supported by substantial evidence.[59] The former is based on comity, the latter is based on the doctrine that administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields.[60] The former is not used in the Philippine legal system while the latter is the established standard.[61] | |||||
|
2004-07-14 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| When Presidential Decree No. 27[5] took effect on October 21, 1972, the Lydia Depusoy Estate located at Nancalobasaan, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, was placed under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).[6] Petitioner Concepcion Toralba[7] was among the qualified farmer-beneficiaries. She was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) No. 059306 covering 1.28 hectares or 13,000 sq. m. more or less of the Lydia Depusoy Estate, designated as Lot No. 05-A/70, subject of the present case. | |||||
|
2004-03-25 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts.[4] The facts of this case are not in dispute. Therefore, as correctly pointed out by private respondents, and, as held by the Court of Appeals, the issues raised by petitioner on appeal are pure questions of law, to wit: (a) Petitioner's adverse claim, registered on January 17, 1983, is effective only for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of registration or until February 16, 1983. (page 4, appellant's Brief). | |||||
|
2002-10-02 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts because of the special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction."[13] Moreover, it is a time-honoured rule that "the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by the Supreme Court and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court."[14] Any exception to these principles, as set forth in the case of Ramos v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co.[15] must be clearly and convincingly proven. Petitioner, however, failed to prove that this case falls within the exception. Nonetheless, we find it necessary to discuss the issue of validity of the quitclaims. In the instant case, private respondents claim that they were merely compelled to sign the releases in favor of their employer. Petitioner, on the other hand, asserts that private | |||||