This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-10-04 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Finally, the core of the issues raised is factual in character. It needs only to be reiterated that factual findings of administrative bodies on technical matters within their area of expertise should be accorded not only respect but even finality if they are supported by substantial evidence even if not overwhelming or preponderant,[26] more so if affirmed by the CA. Absent any grave abuse of discretion on the part of ERC, we must sustain its findings. Hence, its assailed Orders, following the rule of non-interference on matters addressed to the sound discretion of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming their special technical knowledge and training, must be upheld.[27] | |||||
|
2009-10-12 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| It is settled that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but also finality, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[21] In particular, factual findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not reviewable by this Court on appeal.[22] | |||||
|
2008-06-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Section 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied) Solicitor General Devanadera states in her Comment[5] dated December 17, 2007 that, in any event, since she is holding a cabinet rank, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9417, she is not covered by the prohibition of Section 261 (i) of the Omnibus Election Code,[6] the law that prohibits partisan political activity. She cites "Santos v. Yatco, 106 Phil. 745," which held that, so she states, "the ban on prohibited campaigning stated in Section 261(i) of the Omnibus Election Code does not extend to those officers and employees outside of the civil service such as members of the Cabinet."[7] | |||||