This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-01-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Administrative charges cannot be based on mere speculation or conjecture. The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint.[40] Mere allegation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.[41] | |||||
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J |
||||
| Simply put, an AWOL means that the employee has left or abandoned his post for a continuous period of thirty (30) calendar days or more without any justifiable reason and notice to his employer.[28] In this case, petitioners failed to show that respondent had gone, or even had the intention to go, on AWOL. As found by the CSC and the CA, other than the assailed personal attendance sheet, respondent submitted in evidence copies of Index of Payments based on duly accomplished DTRs. These reflect the official attendance of the employee in the absence of proof that the employee concerned falsified the same.[29] Moreover, respondent's receipt of her salary for the contested period shows that there was nothing irregular in her office attendance.[30] Petitioners' claim that respondent incurred four hundred (400) absences for the contested period of November 1999 to May 2000 is indeed mathematically impossible as judiciously found by the CA. Lastly, petitioners' allegation that respondent's immediate supervisor did not know the respondent, despite the glaring fact that she verified the assailed personal attendance sheets, is contrary to logic and does not in any way prove petitioners' contention that respondent was continuously absent during the contested period. | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, although the factual findings of administrative bodies are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, such findings must be supported by substantial evidence.[30] After a careful review of the records, we agree with the Court of Appeals that the elements particular to grave misconduct were not adequately proven in this case. | |||||
|
2005-02-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For respondent to be administratively liable for the use of a falsified document, it must be shown that she knew of the falsity of the death certificate yet went on to use it. Petitioner failed to show clearly that respondent had knowingly introduced in evidence a falsified document. Nothing on the record reveals that indeed respondent knew of the falsity. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint.[21] We cannot depend on mere conjectures and speculations. There must be substantial evidence to support respondent's guilt.[22] Without such evidence, respondent's innocence must be upheld. | |||||