This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-09-23 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Taken together, the above pieces of evidence suggest that the Manila Polo Club share was part of Basso's compensation package and thus he validly used company funds to pay for the transfer fees. If doubts exist between the evidence presented by the employer and the employee, the scales of justice must be tilted in favor of the latter.[88] | |||||
|
2015-06-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Misconduct has been defined as "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public office."[32] Misconduct becomes grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, wilful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.[33] Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[34] | |||||
|
2014-09-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The following day, the social news network Rappler published an article by Aries Rufo entitled "Exclusive: Napoles Parties with Anti-Graft Court Justice" showing a photograph of Senator Jinggoy Estrada (Senator Estrada), one of the main public figures involved in the pork barrel scam, together with Mrs. Napoles and respondent. The reporter had interviewed respondent who quickly denied knowing Mrs. Napoles and recalled that the photograph was probably taken in one of the parties frequently hosted by Senator Estrada who is his longtime friend. Respondent also supposedly admitted that given the ongoing pork barrel controversy, the picture gains a different context; nevertheless, he insisted that he has untainted service in the judiciary, and further denied he was the one advising Mrs. Napoles on legal strategies in connection with the Kevlar helmet cases where she was acquitted by a Division of the Sandiganbayan of which respondent is the Chairman and the then Acting Presiding Justice.[4] | |||||
|
2013-11-20 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Dumapis,[36] we ruled that: While it is true that administrative or quasi-judicial bodies like the NLRC are not bound by the technical rules of procedure in the adjudication of cases, this procedural rule should not be construed as a license to disregard certain fundamental evidentiary rules. The evidence presented must at least have a modicum of admissibility for it to have probative value. Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. | |||||
|
2010-10-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| This was later reiterated in Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company v. Dumapis:[29] | |||||