Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO REYNO v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 197763 2015-12-07	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM VELASCO JR., J.
The Court explained the reason why cross-examination is not required in the proceedings before the labor arbiter in Reyno v. Manila Electric Company,[28] citing Rabago v. National Labor Relations Commission[29] where the Court ruled:x x x The argument that the affidavit is hearsay because the affiants were not presented for cross-examination is not persuasive because the rules of evidence are not strictly observed in proceedings before administrative bodies like the NLRC where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers only. x x x
	GR No. 182267 2009-08-28	PAGAYANAN R. HADJI-SIRAD v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon an employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct, and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[28]
	AM No. P-07-2400 2009-06-23	JUDGE ISIDRA A. ARGANOSA-MANIEGO v. ROGELIO T. SALINAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Given Salinas' own admission, taken together with the evidence submitted by Judge Maniego in support of her Complaint, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the administrative charge of grave misconduct and dishonesty against Salinas. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[18] Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient as basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon the employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer, which is the Court in this case, has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[19]
	GR No. 159701 2007-08-17	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY v. LATE ROMEO F. BOLSO CARPIO, J.
S : Hindi ko talaga siya kilala dahil iyong dalawang taong nauna sa kanya ang talagang may kilala sa kanya. Kilala ko lang siya sa alyas niyang "BOY NEGRO". At nung nagbayad ako ng pera, ay siya talaga ang pinagbigyan ko, doon sa loob ng bahay ko, kasama iyong dalawa.[21] (Emphasis supplied) The standard of substantial evidence is met where the employer, as in this case, has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation in such misconduct makes him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his position.[22]
	AM NO. 2005-26-SC 2006-11-22	RE: DROPPING FROM ROLLS OF MS. ESTHER T. ANDRES. PER CURIAM
In fine, we find that there is substantial evidence to support respondent's dismissal. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[29] Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient as basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon the employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer, as in this case the Court, has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[30]
	GR NO. 146137 2005-06-08	HAYDEE C. CASIMIRO v. FILIPINO T. TANDOG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-entrenched is the rule that substantial proof, and not clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient basis for the imposition of any disciplinary action upon an employee. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied where the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct and his participation therein renders him unworthy of trust and confidence demanded by his position.[32]