Administrative Cases

Factual findings made by quasi-judicial bodies and administrative agencies when supported by substantial evidence are accorded great respect and even finality by the appellate courts. This is because administrative agencies possess specialized knowledge and expertise in their respective fields. As such, their findings of fact are binding upon the Supreme Court unless there is showing of grave abuse of discretion, or when it is clearly shown that they were arrived at arbitrarily or in disregard of the evidence on record. In administrative cases, the injury sought to be remedied is not merely the loss of public money or property. More significant are the pernicious effects of such action on the orderly administration of government services. Acts that go against the established rules of conduct for government personnel bring harm to the civil service, whether they result in loss or not. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee, but the improvement of the  public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government. Prejudice to the service is not only through wrongful disbursement of public funds or loss of public property. Greater damage comes with the public's perception of corruption and incompetence in the government (Jerome Japson v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 189479. April 12, 2011).