Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SHINRYO COMPANY v. RRN INCORPORATED

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR Nos. 198916-17 2016-01-11	MALAYAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. ST. FRANCIS SQUARE REALTY CORPORATION PERALTA, J.
In resolving in seriatim all the issues raised by both parties, the Court is guided by the rule 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 CA. In particular, factual findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not reviewable by this Court on appeal.[9]
	GR No. 184295 2014-07-30	NATIONAL TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. ALPHAOMEGA INTEGRATED CORPORATION PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In any case, the Court finds no reason to disturb the factual findings of the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal on the matter of AIC's entitlement to damages which the CA affirmed as being well supported by evidence and properly referred to in the record. It is well-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 CA.[32]The CIAC possesses that required expertise in the field of construction arbitration and the factual findings of its construction arbitrators are final and conclusive, not reviewable by this Court on appeal.[33]
	GR No. 188072 2011-10-19	EMERITA M. DE GUZMAN v. ANTONIO M. TUMOLVA MENDOZA, J.
The Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from this factual finding by the CIAC, as affirmed by the CA. 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 CA. In particular, factual findings of construction arbitrators are final and conclusive and not reviewable by this Court on appeal.[11]