This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-02-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| service and operates as a deterrent against government officials bent on enriching themselves through unlawful means. By mandate of law, it behooves every government official or employee to make a complete disclosure of his or her assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth because the latter usually results from non-disclosure of such matters.[45] The significance of requiring the filing of a complete, truthful, and sworn SALN as a measure to curb corruption in the bureaucracy cannot be gainsaid. Secs. 7 and 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) are emphatic on this point: Sec. 7. Statement of Assets and Liabilities. Every public officer, within thirty days after assuming office, and thereafter, on or before the fifteenth day of April following the close of every calendar year, x x x shall prepare and file x x x a true, detailed and | |||||
|
2013-03-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts.[9] When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the findings set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.[10] | |||||
|
2012-04-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that, as a general rule, "only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts."[20] We only take cognizance of questions of fact in certain exceptional circumstances;[21] however, we find them to be absent in the instant case. It is also long settled that "factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, will not be disturbed by this Court. As a rule, such findings by the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect, and are deemed final and conclusive on this Court when supported by the evidence on record."[22] We therefore adopt the factual findings of the lower court and the Court of Appeals and rule that the grant of respondent's demurrer to evidence was proper under the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar. | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| From the foregoing, it is imperative that every public official or government employee must make and submit a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth.[5] This serves as the basis of the government and the people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of public officials and employees in compliance with the constitutional policy to eradicate corruption, to promote transparency in government, and to ensure that all government employees and officials lead just and modest lives,[6] with the end in view of curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service.[7] | |||||