Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FLORENTINA SANTOS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 179127 2008-12-24	IN-N-OUT BURGER v. SEHWANI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule." A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. As defined, substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[48] As recounted by the IPO Director General in his decision, there is more than enough substantial evidence to support his finding that respondents are guilty of unfair competition.
	GR NO. 154678 2007-07-17	CORAZON C. BALBASTRO v. NESTOR JUNIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the findings of the Ombudsman, it is settled that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence -- that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[51] Factual findings of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal.[52] And a finding of guilt in an administrative case would also have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge.[53]
	GR No. 172729 2007-06-08	REPUBLIC v. WOODROW CANASTILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is well settled that only substantial evidence is required to sustain a finding of guilt in an administrative case,[18] and findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence.[19] Substantial evidence 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.[20]
	GR NO. 175451 2007-04-13	ROSARIO L. DADULO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule." Otherwise stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint.[13] Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. 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.[14]
	GR NO. 160675 2006-06-16	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Senator Angara. I submit that the means, that is, the disciplinary power, is necessary to achieving that objective of making an effective Ombudsman.[36] The legislative history of Republic Act No. 6770 thus bears out the conclusion that the Office of the Ombudsman was intended to possess full administrative disciplinary authority, including the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault. The lawmakers envisioned the Office of the Ombudsman to be "an activist watchman," not merely a passive one.[37] And this intent was given validation by the Court in Uy v. Sandiganbayan,[38] where it stated that: Clearly, the Philippine Ombudsman departs from the classical Ombudsman model whose function is merely to receive and process the people's complaints against corrupt and abusive government personnel. The Philippine Ombudsman, as protector of the people, is armed with the power to prosecute erring public officers and employees, giving him an active role in the enforcement of laws on anti-graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses that may be committed by such officers and employees. The legislature has vested him with broad powers to enable him to implement his own actions. x x x At this point, it is noted that the Office of the Ombudsman and the appellate court invariably found respondents guilty of simple misconduct. The Court affirms this finding following the salutary rule that factual findings of administrative bodies are accorded great respect by this Court.[39]