Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LORNA A. MEDINA v. COA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 203080 2014-11-12	DR. IDOL L. BONDOC v. MARILOU R. MANTALA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases declaring that a grave offense cannot be mitigated by the fact that the accused is a first time offender or by the length of service of the accused.[30] While in most cases, length of service is considered in favor of the respondent, it is not considered where the offense committed is found to be serious or grave.[31] In Medina v. Commission on Audit,[32] the Court stressed that dishonesty and grave misconduct have always been and should remain anathema in the civil service. They inevitably reflect on the fitness of a civil servant to continue in office. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.
	GR No. 173268 2012-08-23	ERNESTO A. FAJARDO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN DEL CASTILLO, J.
At the outset, it must be emphasized that questions of fact may not be the subject of an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Court as the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.[51] As a rule, findings of fact of the Ombudsman, when affirmed by the CA, are conclusive and binding upon this Court, unless there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman.[52] In this case, there is none.
	GR No. 163859 2012-08-15	DR. FERNANDO A. MELENDRES v. PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As this Court held in Medina v. Commission on Audit[21]: As correctly pointed out by the OSG, the denial of petitioner's request for a formal investigation is not tantamount to a denial of her right to due process. Petitioner was required to file a counter-affidavit and position paper and later on, was given a chance to file two motions for reconsideration of the decision of the deputy ombudsman. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.[22] (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 179677 2012-08-15	ROMEO M. MONTALLANA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
Suffice it to state that in this jurisdiction the well-settled rule is that the findings of fact of administrative bodies, if based on substantial evidence, are controlling on the reviewing authority. It is settled that it is not for the appellate court to substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the sufficiency of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. Administrative decisions on matters within their jurisdiction are entitled to respect and can only be set aside on proof of grave abuse of discretion, fraud or error of law.[27] Consequently, the CA correctly affirmed the conclusion of the Office of the Ombudsman.
	GR No. 170146 2011-06-08	WALDO Q. FLORES v. ATTY. ANTONIO F. MONTEMAYOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.[13] What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.[14] This Court has repeatedly stressed that parties who choose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges against them cannot complain of a denial of due process.[15] Having persisted in his refusal to file his pleadings and evidence before the PAGC, respondent cannot validly claim that his right to due process was violated.
	GR Nos. 165399 and 165475 2011-05-30	THERON V. LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MENDOZA, J.
Anent the alleged failure of respondents to observe due process, well-established is the rule that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[35] The demands of due process are sufficiently met when the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.[36] In the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations,[37] this Court laid down the cardinal and primary rights to be observed and respected in administrative proceedings: (1) The right to a hearing which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof;
	GR No. 180853 2009-01-20	MANICAM M. BACSASAR v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
The issue of whether petitioner's guilt for dishonesty is supported by substantial evidence is factual in nature, the determination of which is beyond the ambit of this Court. Our task in an appeal by petition for review on certiorari as a jurisdictional matter is limited to reviewing errors of law that might have been committed by the CA.[20] The Supreme Court cannot be tasked to go over the proofs presented by the petitioner in the proceedings below and analyze, assess and weigh them to ascertain if the court a quo and the appellate court were correct in their appreciation of the evidence.[21] More so, in the instant case, where the CA affirmed the factual findings of the CSC. Although the rule admits of several exceptions, none of them are in point in this case.