This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-21 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| the charge. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in her complaint.[37] As correctly observed by the OCA, herein complainant failed to prove that respondents were guilty of partisan | |||||
|
2006-05-02 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| It is likewise a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence falls on the complainant. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[5] The Court has to be shown acts or conduct clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before a judge can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.[6] Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent judge has regularly performed his or her duties will prevail. Even in administrative cases, if a magistrate should be disciplined for a graver offense, the evidence against the magistrate sought to be held liable should be competent and derived from direct knowledge.[7] | |||||