This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is a sufficient basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon the employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct that renders the latter unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his or her position.[54] | |||||
|
2006-05-02 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| By this time, petitioner already had a pending petition before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), docketed as CTA Case No. 4848, and apparently involving the same legal issue but a previous taxable period. Hoping to comply with the two (2)-year period within which to file an action for refund under Section 230 of the then Tax Code, petitioner filed a Motion to Admit Supplemental Petition[6] in CTA Case No. 4848 on 28 April 1995, seeking to include in that case the tax refund claimed for the year 1993. However, the CTA denied the admission of the Supplemental Petition in a Resolution dated 25 August 1995.[7] The CTA reasoned then that CTA Case No. 4848 had already been pending for more than two and a half (2 1/2) years, and the admission of the supplemental petition, with a substantial enlargement of petitioner's original claim for refund, would further delay the proceedings, causing as it would, an effective change in the cause of action. Nonetheless, the CTA advised that petitioner could instead file a separate petition for review for the refund of the withholding taxes paid in 1993.[8] | |||||