This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| properly substantiated by competent evidence,[29] like public records of indubitable integrity, "thus needing no corroboration by evidence to be offered by the complainant, whose identity and integrity could hardly be material where the matter involved is of public interest,"[30] or the declarations by the respondents themselves in reaction to the allegations, where such declarations are, properly speaking, admissions worthy of consideration for not being self-serving. | |||||
|
2009-01-20 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| As regards respondent's defense of inadvertence, we hold that such flimsy excuse does not deserve a modicum of belief. As pointed out by the OCA,[24] respondent's argument that her misrepresentation was done due to inadvertence could have been acceptable and could have bailed her out from any liability if the same happened only once or twice. Indeed we have ruled before that to make mistakes is well within the spectrum of human experience.[25] In the instant case, however, the number of misrepresentations made by respondent only points to the conclusion that she concealed the fact of her marriage with deliberate intent. Worse, she went one step further and engaged in a desperate damage control operation involving her belated submission-under suspicious circumstances-of a "corrected" PDS, which she intercalated in her 201 files.[26] The loophole in respondent's devious plan was that she did not realize that she could no longer undo her previous misrepresentations, since the original PDS which reflected her marital status as "single" was already submitted to the Office of the Administrative Services, OCA.[27] In any case, had respondent's conscience been clear, respondent could have easily coordinated with complainant to correct the mistakes she made in her entries. She did not. | |||||
|
2005-06-28 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court stresses that an anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author. However, a complaint of such sort does not always justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded for such complaint may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence.[17] As this Court ruled in Anonymous Complaint Against Gibson A. Araula:[18] | |||||