When substantial evidence rule doesn't apply

In administrative proceedings, not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be "substantial. The substantial evidence rule has been held inapplicable in the following cases:

[1] Where the statute provides for a trial de novo in which the rule shall not be invoked;
[2] Where the statute has specified a standard of proof required for administrative determination. For example, when the law requires an administrative agency to make a finding "by the preponderance of evidence";
[3] Where the suit is not for review of the administrative order and is independent of the proceedings in which the administrative ruling under attack was rendered;
[4] Where constitutional or jurisdictional facts are involved; and
[5] Where property rights rather than privileges are involved.

Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. However, this assurance of a desirable flexibility in administrative procedure does not go so far as to justify orders without a basis in evidence having rational probative force. Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence. (G.R. No. 186502. December 13, 2017)

The discussion above is based on an outline by De Leon and De Leon, Jr. (2010) in their book on administrative law, available in fine bookstores nationwide. SOURCE: De Leon and De Leon, Jr. (2010). Administrative Law: Text and Cases. 6th edition. ISBN 978-971-23-5670-4. Rex Books Store. https://www.rexestore.com/law-library-essentials/984-administrative-law-text-and-casesrevised-edition.html