Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELOISA L. TOLENTINO v. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 188213 2016-01-11	NATIVIDAD C. CRUZ v. PANDACAN HIKER'S CLUB PERALTA, J.
Under normal circumstances, this Court would not disturb the findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman when they are supported by substantial evidence.[25] However, We make an exception of the case at bar because the findings, of fact of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals widely differ.[26]
	GR No. 184785 2014-07-09	RUBY P. LAGOC v. MARIA ELENA MALAGA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight especially when they are affirmed by the CA. It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made.[17] And as long as there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman's decision, that decision will not be overturned.[18] No such grave abuse of discretion is shown in this case.
	GR No. 203696 2014-06-02	JESSE PHILIP B. EIJANSANTOS v. SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE 156 MENDOZA, J.
The long standing policy of the Court is non-interference in the powers given by no less than the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman. Except in clear cases of grave abuse of discretion, the Court will not interfere with the exercise by the Ombudsman of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers on complaints filed against erring public officials and employees. Its findings of fact are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA. Generally, in reviewing administrative decisions, it is beyond the province of this Court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence. It is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result.[9] The recent case of Conrado Casing vs. Hon. Ombudsman[10] is enlightening: The Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with wide latitude, in the exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers, to pass upon criminal complaints involving public officials and employees. Specifically, the determination of whether probable cause exists is a function that belongs to the Office of the Ombudsman. Whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and circumstances, should be filed or not is basically its call.
	GR No. 184083 2013-11-19	WILLIAM C. DAGAN v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
Basic is the rule that the findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when, as in this case, they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made. In reviewing administrative decisions, it is beyond the province of this Court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence. It is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result.[20]
	GR No. 181195 2013-06-10	FREDERICK JAMES C. ORAIS v. DR. AMELIA C. ALMIRANTE DEL CASTILLO, J.
The Court agrees with the CA that the instant Petition presents no opportunity to depart from past pronouncements consistent with law[31] and the rules of procedure[32] of the Office of the Ombudsman that where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the Ombudsman's decision shall be final, executory, and unappealable.[33] Indeed, in one case, the Court went so far as to declare that in such cases, "it follows that the [Court of Appeals] has no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify or reverse"[34] the order or decision of the Ombudsman.
	GR No. 172334 2013-06-05	DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA v. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO REYES, J.
The settled rule provides that factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA.[19] Furthermore, only questions of law may be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court; the Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its function to review evidence on record and assess the probative weight thereof.[20]
	GR No. 179054 2012-09-05	BAGONG KAPISANAN SA PUNTA TENEMENT v. AZER E. DOLOT MENDOZA, J.
The Court agrees with the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA that Dolot and Tañada were guilty of dishonesty. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA.[23] It is not the task of this Court to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result.[24] Although there are exceptions[25] to this rule, the Court finds none in this case.
	GR No. 173268 2012-08-23	ERNESTO A. FAJARDO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that questions of fact may not be the subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[51] As a rule, findings of fact of the Ombudsman, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman.[52] In this case, there is none.
	GR No. 184851 2012-02-15	VALIENTE C. VILLEGAS v. VICTOR C. FERNANDEZ REYES, J.
Elementary is the rule that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA. It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made. In reviewing administrative decisions, it is beyond the province of this Court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence. It is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result.[22]