JUSTICE MARTIN VILLARAMA, JR.: Findings of quasi-judicial agencies

it is the general policy of the Court to sustain the decisions of administrative authorities, especially one which is constitutionally-created, not only on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers but also for their presumed expertise in the laws they are entrusted to enforce ⁽Sanchez v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 127545, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 471, 489, citing Cuerdo v. Commission on Audit, No. L-84592, October 27, 1988, 166 SCRA 657, 661 further citing Tagum Doctors Enterprises v. Apsay, No. L-81188, August 30, 1988, 165 SCRA 154, 155-156.)  Findings of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the COA, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are generally accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence, ⁽Laysa v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 128134, October 18, 2000, 343 SCRA 520, 526) and the decision and order are not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion ⁽Sanchez v. Commission on Audit, supra note 14.) x x x  There being no grave abuse of discretion in the findings and conclusions of the COA in this case, the Court finds no cogent reason to deviate from these long-settled rules (Candelario L. Versoza vs. Guillermo s. Carague, G.R. No. 157838, February 7, 2012, VILLARAMA, JR., J.).