This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2011-03-30 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is a doctrine of long-standing 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 they are not overwhelming or preponderant.[69] Courts will not interfere in matters which are addressed to the sound discretion of the government agency entrusted with regulation of activities coming under the special and technical training and knowledge of such agency. The exercise of administrative discretion is a policy decision and a matter that is best discharged by the government agency concerned and not by the courts.[70] | |||||
|
2010-02-18 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Substantial evidence is more than a mere imputation of wrongdoing or violation that would warrant a finding of liability against the person charged;[31] it is more than a scintilla of evidence. It means such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might opine otherwise.[32] Per the CA's evaluation of their evidence, consisting of the testimonies and affidavits of the three Rubrico women and five other individuals, petitioners have not satisfactorily hurdled the evidentiary bar required of and assigned to them under the Amparo Rule. In a very real sense, the burden of evidence never even shifted to answering respondents. The Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the appellate court's determination of the answering respondents' role in the alleged enforced disappearance of petitioner Lourdes and the threats to her family's security. | |||||
|
2007-04-27 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Electricity is property[25] the enjoyment of which the provider, such as an electric cooperative like Samelco, may extend or deny to others.[26] However, electricity is not just any property, and an electric cooperative is not just any property owner. Electricity is a basic necessity the generation and distribution of which is imbued with public interest, and its provider is a public utility subject to strict regulation by the State in the exercise of police power.[27] Failure to comply with these regulations will give rise to the presumption of bad faith or abuse of right.[28] | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well recognized that a public utility such as petitioner is entitled to a reasonable compensation in return for the service it provides and that it may exact reasonable charges in accordance with the service provided or the rates established therefor.[39] In computing the just and reasonable rates to be charged by a public utility, three major factors are to be considered. These are: the rate of return; the rate base; and the return itself or the computed revenue to be earned by the public utility based on the rate of return and rate base.[40] The rate of return is a percentage which when multiplied by the rate base provides a fair return to the public utility for the use and risks it undertook for the investment of its money.[41] The rate of return in our jurisdiction has been set at 12% by administrative and judicial pronouncements.[42] The rate base refers to the total amount of invested capital or of property "values" on which the public utility is entitled to a reasonable rate of compensation.[43] It includes an allowance for working capital in addition to the net valuation of the utility's tangible property.[44] The valuation of a public utility's assets is an integral portion of the rate base. | |||||
|
2004-06-15 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| One of the landmark pieces of legislation enacted by Congress in recent years is the EPIRA.[25] It established a new policy, legal structure and regulatory framework for the electric power industry. | |||||