This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-04-11 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| At the outset, we stress the settled rule that the findings of fact of administrative bodies will not be interfered with by the courts in the absence of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the former, or unless the aforementioned findings are not supported by substantial evidence.[94] These factual findings carry even more weight when affirmed by the CA, in which case they are accorded not only great respect, but even finality. These findings are binding upon this Court, unless it is shown that the administrative body has arbitrarily disregarded or misapprehended evidence before the latter to such an extent as to compel a contrary conclusion, had the evidence been properly appreciated.[95] This rule is rooted in the doctrine that this Court is not a trier of facts.[96] By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment on those matters.[97] | |||||