Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARLITO C. ENCINAS v. PO1 ALFREDO P. AGUSTIN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 197763 2015-12-07	SMART COMMUNICATIONS v. JOSE LENI Z. SOLIDUM VELASCO JR., J.
Furthermore, considering that it is the NLRC that has interpreted its own rules on this matter, the Court is inclined to accept such interpretation. The Court has held, "By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment on those matters."[21] Moreover, the NLRC properly relaxed the rules on appeal bonds.
	GR No. 200751 2015-08-17	MONICO LIGTAS v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
In Encinas v. Agustin, Jr.,[94] this court clarified that res judicata applies only to decisions rendered by agencies in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to purely administrative proceedings:The CA was correct in ruling that the doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, and not to the exercise of administrative powers. Administrative powers here refer to those purely administrative in nature, as opposed to administrative proceedings that take on a quasi-judicial character.
	GR No. 109645 2015-01-21	ORTIGAS v. JUDGE TIRSO VELASCO LEONEN, J.
(iii) identity of cause of action.[254]
	BM No. 2482 2014-04-01	RE: MELCHOR TIONGSON CARPIO, J.
In administrative proceedings, substantial evidence is the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt,[3] and this requirement is satisfied if the employer has reasonable ground to believe that the employee is responsible for the misconduct.[4] Misconduct means transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by an employee.[5] Any transgression or deviation from the established norm of conduct, work related or not, amounts to a misconduct.[6]