Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LEODEGARIO R. BASCOS v. ENGR. JOSE B. TAGANAHAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 179054 2012-09-05	BAGONG KAPISANAN SA PUNTA TENEMENT v. AZER E. DOLOT MENDOZA, J.
The Court agrees with the findings of the Ombudsman and the CA that Dolot and Tañada were guilty of dishonesty. Well-settled is the rule that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA.[23] It is not the task of this Court to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result.[24] Although there are exceptions[25] to this rule, the Court finds none in this case.
	GR No. 171101 2011-11-22	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
In the second place, the allegation that the converted lands remain undeveloped is contradicted by the evidence on record, particularly, Annex "X" of LIPCO's Memorandum dated September 23, 2010,[45] which has photographs showing that the land has been partly developed.[46] Certainly, it is a general rule that the factual findings of administrative agencies are conclusive and binding on the Court when supported by substantial evidence.[47] However, this rule admits of certain exceptions, one of which is when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record.[48]
	GR No. 170512 2011-10-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ANTONIO T. REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Indeed, Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 mandates that the findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence.[32] In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is necessary to establish the case for or against a party. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise.[33]
	GR No. 153809 2011-07-27	ELOISA L. TOLENTINO v. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Elementary is the rule that the findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals. It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made. In reviewing administrative decisions, it is beyond the province of this Court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence. It is not the function of this Court to analyze and weigh the parties' evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result.[19]
	GR No. 171101 2011-07-05	HACIENDA LUISITA v. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL VELASCO JR., J.
Indeed, factual findings of administrative agencies are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they are affirmed by the CA. [135] However, such rule is not absolute. One such exception is when the findings of an administrative agency are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based, [136] such as in this particular instance. As culled from its Terminal Report, it would appear that the Special Task Force rejected HLI's claim of compliance on the basis of this ratiocination: · The Task Force position: Though, allegedly, the Supervisory Group receives the 3% gross production share and that others alleged that they received 30 million pesos still others maintain that they have not received anything yet. Item No. 4 of the MOA is clear and must be followed. There is a distinction between the total gross sales from the production of the land and the proceeds from the sale of the land. The former refers to the fruits/yield of the agricultural land while the latter is the land itself. The phrase "the beneficiaries are entitled every year to an amount approximately equivalent to 3% would only be feasible if the subject is the produce since there is at least one harvest per year, while such is not the case in the sale of the agricultural land. This negates then the claim of HLI that, all that the FWBs can be entitled to, if any, is only 3% of the purchase price of the converted land.
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
The Court has consistently reminded our public servants that public service demands utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must display at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution mandates the principle that a public office is a public trust; and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[60]
	GR No. 183507 2010-02-24	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ASTERIA E. CRUZABRA CARPIO MORALES, J.
In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, "that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise."[7]