This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-02-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| We stress anew that it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce. [14] Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, [15] and the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. [16] | |||||
|
2011-03-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence.[34] It is only upon a clear showing that the COA acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction that this Court will set aside its decisions or final orders.[35] We find no such arbitrariness or grave abuse on the part of the COA when it disallowed in audit the amount representing the overprice in the payment by CDA for the purchased computer units and peripherals, its findings are well-supported by the evidence on record. | |||||
|
2002-01-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The same rule applies to the officers and employees of the BWD. R.A. No. 6686, which then applied, provides that all government personnel are entitled to a Christmas bonus of one (1) month basic salary and additional cash gift of P1,000.00.[15] The cash gift granted to Francis H. P. Militante, BWD Manager, for the year 1994 amounted to P1,500.00. The Resident Auditor, therefore, properly disallowed the P500.00 thereof as this amount was in excess of that authorized by law. On the other hand, findings regarding the duplication of claims for the transportation allowance granted to various employees of the BWD are findings of fact by the Resident Auditor. The question is whether such claims were properly accounted for and not whether this disallowance will impair vested rights. It is well-settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, are generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, if supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their jurisdiction.[16] In the present case, the findings of the Resident Auditor were not only supported by the evidence, but they remained unrebutted by petitioners who simply relied on claims based on impairment of vested rights and diminution of benefits. | |||||