Administrative Law Philippines
1. Administrative Findings Given Great Weight in Court
Sebastian F. Oasay, Jr. vs. Palacio del Gobernador Condominium Corporation and Omar T. Cruz, [G.R. No. 194306, February 6, 2012.]
LINK: http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/february-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/
Appeal; factual finding of NLRC. 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. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by the Supreme Court, more so when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter. Such factual findings are given more weight when the same are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In the present case, the Supreme Court found no reason to depart from these principles since the Labor Arbiter found that there was substantial evidence to conclude that Oasay had breached the trust and confidence of Palacio Del Gobernador Condominium Corporation, which finding the NLRC had likewise upheld.
Gatus vs. SSS [G. R. No. 174725, January 26, 2011]
LINK: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/174725.htm
The sole issue to be determined is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of the ECC that petitioner’s ailment is not compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended. xxx The burden of proof is thus on petitioner to show that any of the above conditions have been met in his case. The required proof is further discussed in Ortega v. Social Security Commission[17]: The requisite quantum of proof in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence. In this type of cases, a fact may be
Sebastian F. Oasay, Jr. vs. Palacio del Gobernador Condominium Corporation and Omar T. Cruz, [G.R. No. 194306, February 6, 2012.]
LINK: http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/february-2012-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-labor-law-and-procedure/
Appeal; factual finding of NLRC. 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. Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC, if supported by substantial evidence, are accorded respect and even finality by the Supreme Court, more so when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter. Such factual findings are given more weight when the same are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In the present case, the Supreme Court found no reason to depart from these principles since the Labor Arbiter found that there was substantial evidence to conclude that Oasay had breached the trust and confidence of Palacio Del Gobernador Condominium Corporation, which finding the NLRC had likewise upheld.
Gatus vs. SSS [G. R. No. 174725, January 26, 2011]
LINK: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/174725.htm
The sole issue to be determined is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the finding of the ECC that petitioner’s ailment is not compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended. xxx The burden of proof is thus on petitioner to show that any of the above conditions have been met in his case. The required proof is further discussed in Ortega v. Social Security Commission[17]: The requisite quantum of proof in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence. In this type of cases, a fact may be