Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RICARDO PORTUGUEZ v. GSIS FAMILY BANK

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AM No. P-06-2282 2009-08-07	LOLITA S. REGIR v. JOEL T. REGIR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The evidence presented is enough to hold respondent guilty of the charge of immorality or disgraceful and immoral conduct. It is elementary that administrative proceedings are governed by the substantial evidence rule.[14] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[15] The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that the person indicted was responsible for the alleged wrongdoing or misconduct.[16]
	GR No. 165389 2008-10-17	NFD INTERNATIONAL MANNING AGENTS v. NLRC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Factual findings of labor officials, who are deemed to have acquired expertise in matters within their respective jurisdictions, are generally accorded not only respect but even finality. However, the rule is not without exceptions, one of which is when the findings of fact of the labor officials on which the conclusion is based are not supported by substantial evidence.[28] Another exception is when it is perceived that far too much is concluded, inferred or deduced from bare facts adduced in evidence.[29] Moreover, when the findings of the LA and the NLRC are inconsistent with that of the CA, as in the instant case, there is a need to review the records to determine which of them should be preferred as more conformable to evidentiary facts.[30] The Court finds that the present case falls under the above-mentioned exceptions.
	GR No. 154503 2008-02-29	UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB and VIVIAN M. APDUHAN v. NLRC and AMALIA P. KAWADA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court finds that private respondent's allegation of harassment is a specious statement which contains nothing but empty imputation of a fact that could hardly be given any evidentiary weight by this Court.[50] Private respondent's bare allegations of constructive dismissal, when uncorroborated by the evidence on record, cannot be given credence.[51]
	GR No. 154503 2008-02-29	UNIWIDE SALES WAREHOUSE CLUB and VIVIAN M. APDUHAN v. NLRC and AMALIA P. KAWADA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Self-serving and unsubstantiated declarations are insufficient to establish a case before quasi-judicial bodies. Well-entrenched is the rule that the quantum of evidence required to establish a fact in quasi-judicial bodies is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might opine otherwise.[54]