Posted By: James L. Jalon on July 25, 2018
FACTS:
The DPWH has decided to concrete the road in Bacolod City. The contract was awarded to Korona Construction(Korona) sole prorpietorship of Ciro Y. King (King). King obliged himself to post a performance bond, 10% of the contract price, and a security bond from the GSIS equivalent to 10% of the contract cost immediately after the project shall have been 100% completed. These bonds would answer for any defects that may arise out of the project within the period of one year.
King declared that the construction was on its 100% where in truth and in fact, it is on its 95% completion. However was issued a Certificate of Completion from DPWH without conducting the required actual inspection.
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the findings of the office of the ombudsman deserve greater weight, and must be accorded full respect and credit.
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
This Court is to resolve the issue of whether or not the Decision of the CA granting respondents' petition for certiorari is erroneous, an issue which is factual in nature.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, since the Court, after all, is not a trier of facts. Unless for exceptional reasons, it is not to review the evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof. However, factual issues may be delved into and resolved where, as in this case, the findings and conclusions of the Office of the Ombudsman in its decision are frontally inconsistent with those in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA.
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
This Court is to resolve the issue of whether or not the Decision of the CA granting respondents' petition for certiorari is erroneous, an issue which is factual in nature.
Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised, since the Court, after all, is not a trier of facts. Unless for exceptional reasons, it is not to review the evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof. However, factual issues may be delved into and resolved where, as in this case, the findings and conclusions of the Office of the Ombudsman in its decision are frontally inconsistent with those in the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA.
