Administrative Law Philippines

1. Administrative Findings Given Great Weight in court of law 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 genuine finding of NLRC. Findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which watch acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is captive to specific matters, atomic number 18 gener bothy accorded non only if respect scarcely finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals.Factual findings of quasi-judicial bodies equivalent the NLRC, if supported by lusty depict, ar accorded respect and even finality by the commanding Court, more so when they coincide with those of the Labor Arbiter. Such factual findings are given more pitch when the same are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. In the present case, the Supreme Court found no dry land to depart from these principles since the Labor Arbiter found that there was considerable shew to conclude that Oasay had breached the trust and confidence of Palacio Del Gobernador Condominium Corporation, which finding the NLRC had similarly upheld.Gatus vs. SSS G. R. No. 174725, January 26, 2011 LINK http//sc. judiciary. gov. ph/jurisprudence/2011/january2011/174725. htm The sole publicize to be determined is whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of free will in affirming the finding of the ECC that entreaters ailment is non compensable under Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended. thirty The burden of proof is thus on beger to show that each of the above insures have been met in his case. The required proof is further discussed inOrtega v. Social credentials Commission17The requisite quantum of proof in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor prevalence of evidence. In this type o f cases, a fact may be deemed accomplished if it is supported by self-coloured evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as able to justify a conclusion. In this case, substantial evidence abounds. xxx The questioned decision deemed as established fact that petitioner is a cigarette tobacco user but petitioner vehemently denies this, saying there is no adapted evidence to prove he had that habit.What petitioner would like this Court to do is to pass upon a question of fact, which the ECC, the SSS, and the Court of Appeals have used to cut across his exact for compensation. This is not all in allowed under Section 1 of Rule 45, which states that the petition shall raiseonly questions of lawwhich mustiness be distinctly redact forth. 21Hence, questions of fact may not be taken up in a petition for review oncertiorari much(prenominal) as this case now before us. As we have held previouslyA question of fact exists when the doubt cente rs on the truth or hollowness of the alleged facts while a question of law exists if the doubt centers on what the law is on a certain restrict of facts. There is a question of fact if the issue requires a review of the evidence presented or requires the re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses. However, if the issue embossed is capable of being resolved without necessity of reviewing the probative value of the evidence, the question is one of law. xxxThe matter of petitioners cigarette smoking, established by two competent government agencies and the appellate court, is thus a matter that cannot be questioned before us via petition for review. There is no doubt that petitioner deserves sympathy because even the benefits already given to him were questioned after the SSS found that he was a inveterate cigarette smoker. For humanitarian reasons, as he pursued his claim all the way to the Court as an indigent litigant, and overdue to his advancing age, we would like to clar ify that what had already been given him should no longer be taken away from him.But he is not entitled to further compensation for his condition. We have once more put great weight to the factual findings of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, namely the SSS and the ECC, as they have acquired expertise in all matters relating to employee compensation and disability benefits. As we have held inOrtega v. Social Security Commission25 It is colonized that the Court is not a trier of facts and accords great weight to the factual findings of lower courts or agencies whose function is to resolve factual matters.It is not for the Court to weigh evidence all over again. Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are primarily accorded not only respect but finality when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 2. Decisions not stating facts and the law Saba lla, et. al vs. NLRC G. R. Nos. 102472-84. August 22, 1996 The Issue The petitioners raised the lone issue of whether or not RESPONDENT NLRC GRAVELY abuse ITS DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN, DESPITE THE overwhelm EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, IT DECLARED THE RETRENCHMENT OF PETITIONERS VALID AND LEGAL. Petitioners argue that while theNLRCclaimed to differ with the factual findings/conclusions of the ump, it did not state what situation findings and conclusions it could not go along with and while the Decision purports to apply the requisites for a valid suppression, the public answerer did not specify what those were.Further, citingLopez Sugar Corporation vs. Federation of Free Workers,15petitioners claim that nonpublic responsive failed to show by convincing proof the consent of the requirements for valid curtailment, and among other things, failed to show that the sackes sought to be prevented were substantial and reasonably at hand(predicate). On the contrary, according to petitioners, the evidence on record understandably shows that the enforcement of the suppression program was attended by bad faith. The Courts Ruling NLRCDecision ArbitraryThe petition is meritorious. This Court has previously held that judges and arbiters should immerse up their decisions and resolutions with due care, and make certain that they truly and accurately deliberate their conclusions and their final dispositions. 16A decision should faithfully comply with Section 14, obligateVIIIof the Constitution which provides that no decision shall be rendered by whatsoever court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts of the case and the law on which it is based.If such decision had to be completely overturned or set aside, upon the filing of a motion for reconsideration, in a subsequent treat via a resolution or modified decision, such resolution or decision should likewise state the factual and legal foundation relied upon. T he reason for this is obviousaside from being required by the Constitution, the court should be able to justify such a sudden change of track down it must be able to convincingly explain the taking endure of its solemn conclusions and pronouncements in the earlier decision. 17The same thing goes for the findings of fact do by theNLRC, as it is a settled rule that such findings are entitled to great respect and even finality when supported by substantial evidence otherwise, they shall be struck down for being bizarre and capricious and arrived at with grave abuse of discretion. 18It is a requirement of due process and fair play that the parties to a litigation be sure of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based moderates the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losi ng party, who is unable to pinpoint the practical errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal. 19 Based on the foregoing considerations, we find the assailed Decision arbitrary in its naked instruction that(A)pplying the requisites (for valid retrenchment) to the instant case, we lent credence to answerings evidence supporting the fact that it was suffering financial reverses (pp. 118-136). Hence, complainants detachment is valid, due to retrenchment. The Decision does not indicate thespecificbases for such important holding.While itenumerated both(prenominal) of the factors that supposedly weighed in favor of nonpublic respondents position,i. e. , theNEAs foreclosure letter theNPCs disconnection letter sequestered respondents Income Statement the fact that the employees union agreed to the forced leave policy instead of the drastic measure of retrenchment and the impossibility of reinstating the petitioners considering the financial losses for 1988 alone not to m ention the losses incurred for 1989 and wage increases obligate by the government (pp. 13-141,rollo), the public respondent nevertheless did not stupefy to explain how it came to the conclusion that private respondent was experiencing business reversals, nor did it specify which particular data and document it based such conclusion upon. This can only be because the private respondent failed to show convincingly by substantial evidence the fact of its failing financial health, and that such retrenchment was justified.Our observance is bolstered further by the Comment of the public respondent where it tried to cut off its ruling by saying It is to be noted that private respondent x x x is a big and reputable caller and for them to admit that it is in distress is a bitter pill to swallow, til now they must accept the sad situation that they are in. This representation believes in the veracity of respondents x x x position. evening resorting to the records does not help.The ter mination letter dated October 18, 198820stated that the reason for the retrenchment was to avoid Coop financial losses. However, the imminent loss sought to be forestalled by the retrenchment of petitioners was not actually indicated or specified. Page 118 of the records is the pauperism letter ofNEAfor turn outment of private respondents arrearages as of June 30, 1988. It warned that the sexual conquest in the amount of approximately P8. 5 million should be settled within 30 days otherwiseNEAwill exercise its by rights to foreclose.But the records do not show that any property of private respondent was ever foreclosed nor that the savings from the salaries of the retrenched petitioners were to be used to pay for the arrearages neither was it shown that private respondent did not have the resources to pay said obligation. Page 119 of the records is a Notice of Disconnection stating that the private respondent was required to pay twenty five percent of its outstanding bill to t heNEAor face indicator disconnection on July 29, 1988.But private respondent did not show that such disconnection was effected then nor that the allotment for petitioners salaries was to be used to pay for this bill. The private respondent in its motion for reconsideration asked that the labor arbiter take judicial notice thatNPCeventually disconnected its power cut on April 10, 1989, but this only means that the private respondent must have been able to pay up and settle its account on or about July 29, 1988, as it was not disconnected until April 10, 1989.By October 18, 1988, the losses, if any, sought to be proven by these documents would already have been sustained, so there could not have been any imminent loss which was to have been forestalled by the retrenchment of petitioners effected at that time. In other words, these abovementioned documents did not show any expected loss which made the retrenchment reasonably necessary, nor that such retrenchment was likely to prevent the expected loss.We do not deny that the private respondent would suffer losses as a result of a foreclosure or power disconnection, however, it failed to show how these threatened events eventually affected the co-ops financial health, if they ever happened at all. Besides, they are irrelevant because the imminent loss was supposed to come after October 18, 1988, months after these incidents. Moreover, pages 120-136 of the records (referred to in the assailed Decision) are the financial statements of the private respondent which areunauditedby free-lance external auditors and are withoutaccompanying explanations.This Court has previously held that financial statements audited by independent external auditors constitute the normal method of proof of the profit and loss performance of a company. 21And since private respondent insists that itscritical financial conditionwas the central and pivotal reason for its retrenchment and forced leave programs, we hence fail to see why it should neglect or refuse to pick out such audited financial statements. Apart from that, we noted that the said unaudited statements were filled with erasures some entries were even handwritten, and different typewriters were used.There is therefore serious ground to doubt the correctness and accuracy of said statements. Additionally, these statements require further explanations before the accounting procedures of private respondent can be understood. Thus, the Court is wary of according them any probative value, especially since respondent Commission seems to have treated them in a similar fashion by not discussing them in its Decision. In brief, we hold that public respondent gravely abused its discretion in rendering the challenged Decision without adequately explaining its factual and legal