Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. GREGORIO LORENA AND TERESITA LORENA v. JUDGE ADOLFO V. ENCOMIENDA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	AM NO. RTJ-02-1732 2006-12-11	IN MATTER CONCERNING LOSS OF DOCUMENTS SIRS/MESDAMES
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.[12] Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[13]
	AM NO. P-03-1678 2006-06-26	SPS. ERROL AND TERESITA PAN v. ALBERT S. SALAMAT CARPIO, J.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.[13] Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[14]
	AM No. RTJ-04-1854 2004-06-08	ANA MARIA C. MANGUERRA v. JUDGE GALICANO C. ARRIESGADO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints.[8] As observed by the Investigating Justice, without the testimony of the complainant and her other material witnesses, the allegations of the complaint stand unsubstantiated. In the absence of contrary evidence, as in this case, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondents regularly performed their duties.[9]
	AM No. RTJ-03-1755 2003-07-03	JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN v. JUDGE AMALIA F. DY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.[8] In the absence of contrary evidence as in this case, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties.[9] The Rules, even in an administrative case, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.[10] Before any member of the Judiciary can be faulted, there should be due investigation and presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character.[11]