This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2006-02-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The long-settled rule is that the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused who is also a respondent in an administrative case does not necessarily foreclose the administrative proceeding against him or carry with it the relief from administrative liability.[12] The quantum of evidence needed in a criminal case is different from that required in an administrative case. In the former, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed;[13] while the latter, substantial evidence,[14] defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,[15] is enough. However, if the complainant fails to meet the required standard or to establish his/her case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence[16] as in this case, this Court shall not hesitate to dismiss any disbarment proceedings against any lawyer. After all, the power to disbar must be exercised with great caution, and may be imposed only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the Court and as a member of the bar.[17] | |||||
|
2005-04-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| As a matter of administrative procedure, a department secretary may utilize other officials to investigate and report the facts from which a decision may be based.[19] In the present case, the secretary effectively delegated the power to investigate to the PCAGC. | |||||
|
2004-11-10 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The long-settled rule is that the dismissal of a criminal case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence against an accused who is also a respondent in an administrative case does not necessarily foreclose the administrative proceeding against him or carry with it the relief from administrative liability. Unlike in criminal cases, which require proof beyond reasonable doubt, the quantum of proof required in administrative proceedings is substantial evidence, defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[24] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The argument is not well-taken. Long-ingrained in our jurisprudence is the rule that the dismissal of a criminal case against an accused who is a respondent in an administrative case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence does not foreclose the administrative proceeding against him or give him a clean bill of health in all respects.[15] The quantum of evidence required in the latter is only substantial evidence, and not proof beyond reasonable doubt that is required in criminal cases.[16] Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.[17] | |||||
|
2002-10-14 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Espinosa.[31] Petitioner Padua would argue that while these Directors signed the Resolution, none of them personally attended the hearing. This argument is misplaced. Under our jurisprudence, an administrative agency may employ other persons, such as a hearing officer, examiner or investigator, to receive evidence, conduct hearing and make reports, on the basis of which the agency shall render its decision. Such a procedure is a practical necessity.[32] Thus, in Mollaneda vs. Umacob,[33] we ruled: " x x x At any rate, it cannot be gainsaid that the term "administrative body or agency" includes the subordinate officials upon whose hand the body or agency delegates a portion of its authority. Included therein are the hearing officers through whose eyes and ears the | |||||