This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2008-12-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Well-entrenched is the rule that findings of facts of the CTA are binding on this Court and can only be disturbed on appeal if not supported by substantial evidence.[23] Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[24] | |||||
|
2004-02-13 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In a long line of cases, we have consistently held that "x x x 'a compromise once approved by final orders of the court has the force of res judicata[16] between the parties and should not be disturbed except for vices of consent or forgery.' Hence, 'a decision on a compromise agreement is final and executory x x x.'"[17] Such agreement has the force of law[18] and is conclusive between the parties.[19] It transcends its identity as a mere contract binding only upon the parties thereto, as it becomes a judgment that is subject to execution in accordance with the Rules.[20] Judges therefore have the ministerial and mandatory duty to implement and enforce it.[21] | |||||
|
2000-08-08 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| evidence, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or preponderant. It is not the task of an appellate court to weigh once more the evidence submitted before the administrative body and to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency in respect of sufficiency of evidence."[17] WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals. In lieu thereof, the Court REVIVES and AFFIRMS the resolutions of the Civil Service Commission dismissing respondent Paulino W. Resma from office for grave misconduct. No | |||||