This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Under normal circumstances, this Court would not disturb the findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman when they are supported by substantial evidence.[25] However, We make an exception of the case at bar because the findings, of fact of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals widely differ.[26] | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.[58] Its absence is not shown by stressing that there is contrary evidence, direct or circumstantial, on record.[59] In the case at bar, the required evidence sufficient to justify holding petitioner Aguilar administratively liable has been, to us, as to the CA, satisfied. Not only did she fail to declare in her SALN the residential lot located at Panicuason, Naga City, she likewise failed | |||||