This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2014-06-09 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In addition, petitioner makes mention of an Order issued by the DAR on September 4, 1975 which requires an applicant of a conversion order to develop the property converted within two (2) years.[25] Petitioner also cites an ocular inspection conducted on June 27-29, 2005 as well as certain findings of the CLUPPI Committee, which states that a large portion of the disputed lands herein remain to be developed. However, the CA maintained that petitioner failed to attach these documents, along with other pertinent evidence, such as respondent's original site development plan vis-à-vis the level of accomplishment or completion.[26] We believe that this failure of the petitioner to attach supporting evidence is fatal. The petitioner, contrary to its assertion, had the burden to prove by substantial evidence, the allegations on which its complaint was based.[27] However, in failing to submit convincing and satisfactory proof, petitioner failed to overcome the burden of proving respondent's non-compliance with the conversion order. | |||||
|
2013-11-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.[22] The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case,[23] or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal cases, but the evidence must be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion. | |||||
|
2012-03-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A petition for review on certiorari should raise only questions of law. In resolving a petition for review, the Court "does not sit as an arbiter of facts for it is not the function of the Supreme Court to analyze or weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below."[14] | |||||
|
2011-11-28 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| [39] G.R. No. 175201, April 23: 2008, 552 SCRA 589. citing Montemayor v. Bundalian, 453 Phil 158, 167(2003). | |||||
|
2010-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Substantial evidence, the quantum of evidence required in administrative proceedings, means such relevant evidence as 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 a person is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.[16] | |||||
|
2010-11-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| A question of fact arises when the doubt or difference pertains to the truth or falsehood of alleged facts, or when the query necessarily solicits calibration of the whole evidence, considering the credibility of witnesses, the existence and relevance of specific circumstances, and their relation to one another and to the whole situation.[22] | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant.[55] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might conceivably opine otherwise.[56] In sum, we find Noel and Amelia guilty of grave misconduct for misrepresenting that they could help in the favorable outcome of a case or for setting a case for agenda by the Court En Banc. | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Coming to the third and fourth issues, petitioner calls on the Court to resolve issues of fact. Settled is the rule that a petition for review on certiorari filed with this Court under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court shall raise only questions of law.[10] This Court is not a trier of facts. It is not its function to analyze or weigh evidence. The jurisdiction of this Court over cases brought to it is limited to the review and rectification of errors allegedly committed by the lower courts.[11] While there are exceptions to this rule,[12] the Court finds that the present case does not fall under any of them. | |||||
|
2009-11-05 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A close examination of the records will reveal that the Ombudsman acted properly in dismissing the charge for falsification of public documents because herein respondents utterly failed to identify the supposedly falsified documents and submit certified true copies thereof. In fact, respondents admitted in their petition for certiorari, originally filed with this Court but referred to the CA, that they had not yet submitted documents in support of the charge for falsification of documents as they intended to present the same in a formal preliminary investigation, which they expected to be conducted by the Ombudsman.[13] However, it has long been acknowledged that in administrative proceedings, even those before the Ombudsman, a formal hearing is not required and cases may be submitted for resolution based only on affidavits, supporting documents and pleadings. Such procedure has been held to be sufficient compliance with the requirements of procedural due process as all that is needed is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[14] In this case, records show that respondents had been afforded such opportunities. | |||||