This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-02-11 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| may manifest itself in corruption, or in other similar acts, done with the clear intent to violate the law or in flagrant disregard of established rules.[44] (Citations omitted) In several cases, this court has held that the court personnel's act of soliciting or receiving money from litigants constitutes grave misconduct.[45] The sole act of receiving money from litigants, whatever the reason may be, is antithesis to being a | |||||
|
2008-02-06 |
|||||
| Neither does the dismissal of the estafa charge against him, which was based on an affidavit of desistance anyway. It bears noting that the quantum of proof required to successfully prosecute an administrative case is merely substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.[19] At all events, as noted earlier, respondent did not deny the charge. | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The argument is not well-taken. Long-ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case against an accused who is a respondent in an administrative case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not foreclose the administrative proceeding against him or give him a clean bill of health in all respects.[15] The quantum of evidence required in the latter is only substantial evidence, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt that is required in criminal cases.[16] Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.[17] | |||||
|
2003-04-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The acts or omissions of a judge may well constitute at the same time both a criminal act and an administrative offense. Whether the criminal case against Judge Hurtado relates to an act committed before or after he became a judge is of no moment. Neither is it material that an MTC judge will be trying an RTC judge in the criminal case. A criminal case against an attorney or judge is distinct and separate from an administrative case against him. The dismissal of the criminal case does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative case arising from the same set of facts. The quantum of evidence that is required in the latter is only preponderance of evidence, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt which is required in criminal cases.[10] As held in Gatchalian Promotions Talents Pool, Inc. v. Naldoza:[11] | |||||