This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-07-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The facts in the present case are analogous to those in Laxina, Sr. v. Ombudsman,[29] which likewise involved identical administrative complaints filed in both the Ombudsman and the sangguniang panlungsod against a punong barangay for grave misconduct. The Court held therein that the rule against forum shopping applied only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to administrative cases.[30] Thus, even if complainants filed in the Ombudsman and the sangguniang bayan identical complaints against private respondent, they did not violate the rule against forum shopping because their complaint was in the nature of an administrative case. | |||||
|
2008-07-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is different from the degree of proof required in criminal proceedings, which calls for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. x x x[15] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the findings of the Ombudsman, it is settled that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence -- that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[51] Factual findings of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal.[52] And a finding of guilt in an administrative case would also have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge.[53] | |||||