Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PRIMO C. MIRO v. CARPIO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 209286 2014-09-23	LINA DELA PEÑA JALOVER v. JOHN HENRY R. OSMEÑA BRION, J.
Closely related with the limited focus of the present petition is the condition, under Section 5, Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, that findings of fact of the COMELEC, supported by substantial evidence, shall be final and non-reviewable. Substantial evidence is that degree of evidence that a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion.[56] In light of our limited authority to review findings of fact, we do not ordinarily review in a certiorari case the COMELEC's appreciation and evaluation of evidence. Any misstep by the COMELEC in this regard generally involves an error of judgment, not of jurisdiction.
	GR No. 203696 2014-06-02	JESSE PHILIP B. EIJANSANTOS v. SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE 156 MENDOZA, J.
The OSG correctly argued that in an administrative proceeding, the evidentiary bar against which the evidence at hand is measured is not the highest quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt, requiring moral certainty to support affirmative findings. Instead, the lowest standard of substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion, applies. Because administrative liability attaches so long as there is some evidence adequate to support the conclusion that acts constitutive of the administrative offense have been performed (or have not been performed), reasonable doubt does not ipso facto result in exoneration unlike in criminal proceedings where guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[17]
	GR No. 197299 2013-02-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RODRIGO V. MAPOY PER CURIAM
It is well-entrenched that in an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion and not proof beyond reasonable doubt which requires moral certainty to justify affirmative findings.[22]
	GR No. 197299 2013-02-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RODRIGO V. MAPOY PER CURIAM
In this case, the Court finds substantial evidence to support the charges against respondents for grave misconduct and dishonesty. Records show that Matias sought the help of the police to entrap respondents who were illegally soliciting money from him. Hence, the CISU-NCRPO planned an entrapment operation which took place at the Century Park Hotel, Manila on October 8, 2003. Prior to the entrapment, Matias withdrew P300,000.00 from his bank,[23] which, in turn, recorded the serial numbers of the bills released.[24] During the entrapment, Mapoy received the white envelope containing P300,000.00 marked money from Matias and handed it over to Regalario from whom it was subsequently recovered. After their arrest, respondents were brought to the police station for investigation[25] and subsequently charged of the crime of robbery/extortion. To a reasonable mind, the foregoing circumstances are more than adequate to support the conclusion that respondents extorted money from Matias which complained act amounts to grave misconduct or such corrupt conduct inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constituting flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[26] Similarly, respondents have been dishonest in accepting money from Matias. Dishonesty has been held to include the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud, untrustworthiness, lack of integrity, lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle, lack of fairness and straightforwardness, among others.[27] Hence, their dismissal from the service with all its accessory penalties was in order.
	GR No. 190793 2012-06-19	MAGDALO PARA SA PAGBABAGO v. COMELEC SERENO, J.
As an administrative proceeding, the evidentiary bar against which the evidence at hand is measured is not the highest quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt, requiring moral certainty to support affirmative findings. Instead, the lowest standard of substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion, applies.[48] (Emphasis omitted.)
	AM No. P-09-2660 2011-11-29	FRANCISCO C. TAGUINOD v. DEPUTY SHERIFF ROLANDO TOMAS PER CURIAM
Respondent's violation of Section 5 of PD 1079 and Section 2(e), Canon III of the Code of Conduct constitutes grave misconduct or corrupt conduct in flagrant disregard of well-known legal rules.[10] Respondent, who entered the judiciary in 1996, ought to know these provisions; his multiple transactions with Taguinod show flagrant disregard of their proscriptions.
	GR No. 191938 2010-07-02	ABRAHAM KAHLIL B. MITRA v. COMELEC BRION, J.
In the recently concluded elections of May 10, 2010, Mitra obtained the most number of votes for Governor and was accordingly proclaimed winner of the Palawan gubernatorial contest.[47]