This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-09-07 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| As this finding of fact by the CIAC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and it being apparent that the CIAC arrived at said finding after a thorough consideration of the evidence presented by both parties, the same may no longer be reviewed by this Court. The all too-familiar rule is that the Court will not, in a petition for review on certiorari, entertain matters factual in nature, save for the most compelling and cogent reasons, like when such factual findings were drawn from a vacuum or arbitrarily reached, or are grounded entirely on speculation or conjectures, are conflicting or are premised on the supposed evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record or when the inference made is manifestly mistaken or absurd.[144] This conclusion is made more compelling by the fact that the CIAC is a quasi-judicial body whose jurisdiction is confined to construction disputes.[145] Indeed, settled is the rule that findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not only respect, but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[146] | |||||