This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-10-14 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that findings of fact and conclusions by the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence.[23] Substantial evidence 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.[24] The factual findings of the Office of the Ombudsman are generally accorded great weight and respect, if not finality by the courts, by reason of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction.[25] | |||||
|
2015-04-15 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal from the service, even for the first offense.[40] The respondents should be reminded that grave misconduct has always been and will remain anathema in the civil service. It inevitably reflects on the fitness of a civil servant to continue in office. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object is the improvement of the public service and the preservation of public's faith and confidence in the government.[41] | |||||
|
2015-03-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Office of the Ombudsman v. Amalio A. Mallari,[28] the Court explained the difference between simple and grave misconduct, as follows: Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. The misconduct is considered as grave if it involves additional elements such as corruption or willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proven by substantial evidence; otherwise, the misconduct is only simple. Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. In other words, in grave misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be evident. | |||||
|
2011-06-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, while this case was pending resolution before the appellate court or on February 2, 2004, the trial court rendered a Decision [14] in the main case (i.e., Civil Case No. 02-103160). From this judgment, petitioners, except petitioner Westmont Investment Corporation, filed a notice of appeal. [15] This case was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 83161 and is pending resolution before the appellate court. For its part, petitioner Westmont Investment Corporation filed an Ex Abundanti Ad Cautelam Notice Of Appeal [16] and a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. [17] On December 15, 2010, this Court issued a Resolution requiring the Court of Appeals to elevate the complete records of CA-G.R. CV No. 83161 to this Court. | |||||
|
2011-06-13 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioners' appeal and certiorari petition effectively seek to annul the February 2, 2004 Decision of the trial court. In their pending appeal before the appellate court, petitioners argued, among others, that they were unduly deprived of their right to avail of modes of discovery, specifically, the deposition taking subject matter of this case. [24] This is one of their arguments in their appeal which prays for the annulment of the February 2, 2004 Decision on due process grounds. [25] On the other hand, petitioners argued in their certiorari petition that the disallowance of the taking of the subject depositions deprived them of the opportunity to bring to fore crucial evidence determinative of this case. According to petitioners, this brought about the erroneous February 2, 2004 Decision issued by the trial court. [26] In fine, the appeal and certiorari petition raise similar arguments and effectively seek to achieve the same purpose of annulling the | |||||