This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2005-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion is required.[53] Thus, findings of fact of quasi-judicial agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by the Supreme Court, if supported by substantial evidence, in recognition of their expertise on the specific matters under their consideration.[54] Thus, factual determinations made by the SDHO and the NAB as affirmed by the Court of Appeals are undoubtedly beyond review and conclusive upon this Court, they being triers of facts. The congruence in their conclusion forecloses any possibility of reversible error or misappreciation of facts. Such being the case, we cannot but affirm their common conclusion as petitioner failed to advance substantial and convincing evidence and arguments that will merit the reversal of prior decisions on the case. | |||||