This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-08-17 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The resignation of respondent from the service on February 14, 2011 is of no moment. Resignation from the service will not extricate court employees from the consequences of their acts. It is settled that the cessation from office neither warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against the respondents while they were still in the service nor does it render the case moot and academic.[32] "A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications,"[33] as nothing "would prevent a corrupt and unscrupulous government employee from committing abuses and other condemnable acts knowing fully well that they would soon be beyond the pale of the law and immune to all administrative penalties[.]"[34] The only effect of respondent's resignation is that it rendered moot the imposition of the penalty of dismissal. | |||||
|
2015-07-06 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| We find apropos to apply by analogy our decision in the Office of Ombudsman v. Dechavez[21] where we held that retirement from the service during the pendency of an administrative case does not render the case moot and academic. We found:As early as 1975, we have upheld the rule that the jurisdiction that was Ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications." | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| At the outset, it must be stressed that in administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to support any findings. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that one is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[29] In cases before the Office of the Ombudsman, jurisprudence instructs that "the fundamental rule in administrative proceedings is that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act is unequivocal: Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Conversely, therefore, when the findings of fact by the Ombudsman are not adequately supported by substantial evidence, they shall not be binding upon the courts."[30] Thus, the Court must make its own factual review of the case when the Ombudsman's findings are contradictory to that of the CA,[31] as in this case. | |||||