This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2012-08-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the issue of whether petitioner's guilt on the administrative charges against him is supported by substantial evidence is factual in nature, the determination of which is beyond the ambit of this Court. The task of this Court 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.[28] 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.[29] This Court has time and again refrained from interfering with the Ombudsman's exercise of its constitutionally mandated investigatory and prosecutory powers. This is in recognition of the Office of the Ombudsman's independence and initiative in prosecuting or dismissing a complaint filed before it.[30] More so, in the case at bar, where the CA affirmed the factual findings and conclusion of the Office of the Ombudsman. Although there are exceptions to this rule, none of which exists in the present case. | |||||
|
2011-10-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The question raised by Dumduma regarding the CA's appreciation of the evidence against him is ineluctably one of fact, which is beyond the ambit of this Court's jurisdiction in a petition for review on certiorari. It is not this Court's task to go over the proofs presented below to ascertain if they were appreciated and weighed correctly, most especially when the CA and the CSC speak as one in their findings and conclusions.[38] While it is widely held that this rule of limited jurisdiction admits of exceptions, none exists, or is even alleged as existing, in the instant case. | |||||
|
2011-10-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render [a] transaction unconscientious. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention not from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts.[40] | |||||
|
2011-10-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Dumduma denied the charge.[11] His version of the circumstances surrounding his alleged eligibility is as follows: Prior to the date of the examination, Dumduma met a certain Salome Dilodilo (Dilodilo), who was allegedly a retired CSC director. Dilodilo promised Dumduma her "total support in [Dumduma's] x x x examination [but] (i)n return, she asked [Dumduma] to convince [his] close friend x x x to sell x x x a property x x x [to her]."[12] On the day before the examination,[13] Dumduma and Dilodilo went to the CSC Office located at Kaliraya Street, Quezon City in order to facilitate an early examination schedule[14] for Dumduma. The following day, December 15, 1998, Dumduma took the Career Service Professional Examination.[15] A week later, he received his Certificate of Eligibility[16] from an unnamed person, who claimed to be Dilodilo's emissary.[17] The Certificate of Eligibility stated that Dumduma passed the examination with a rating of 81%.[18] Dumduma then wrote the said information in his PDS, allegedly in good faith that the Certificate of Eligibility was authentic. | |||||
|
2010-09-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is undisputed that petitioner appealed the CSCRO IV's decision almost three years from receipt thereof. Undoubtedly, the appeal was filed way beyond the reglementary period when the decision had long become final and executory. As held in Bacsasar v. Civil Service Commission,[13] citing Talento v. Escalada, Jr.[14] | |||||
|
2010-08-11 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| One. That the Atienzas brought up the illegality of their sale of subject land only when they filed their motion for reconsideration of the CA decision is not lost on this Court. As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it was raised before the court below. This is but a rule of fairness.[16] | |||||
|
2009-12-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it is not legally objectionable for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties, as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimonies.[21] In the present case, the various letters of explanation, as well as certifications, joint affidavits and other documents, submitted by the PCMC constitute evidence to support its contentions and are sufficient bases for the PEZA Board to arrive at a sound decision with respect to the present case. | |||||