This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Panado,[16] we held that where the NLRC or the labor arbiter acted capriciously and whimsically in total disregard of evidence material to or even decisive of the controversy, the extraordinary writ of certiorari will lie.[17] While as a general rule, the factual findings of administrative agencies are not subject to review by this Court, it is equally established that we will not uphold erroneous conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, because the agency a quo, for that reason, would be guilty of a grave abuse of discretion. Nor is this Court bound by conclusions which are not supported by substantial evidence.[18] The substantial evidence rule does not authorize any finding just as long as there is any evidence to support it. It does not excuse administrative agencies from considering contrary evidence which fairly detracts from the evidence supporting a finding.[19] | |||||