Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO v. F. WALTER R. MACABUHAY

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 168039 2009-06-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FERNANDO J. BELTRAN PERALTA, J.
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 the respondent is guilty of misconduct, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[38] In the present case, after evaluating the totality of the evidence on record, this Court reaches the inescapable conclusion that complainant Germedia failed to present substantial evidence to establish that Beltran was administratively liable for grave misconduct.
	GR No. 147423 2008-10-15	TIRSO Z. OPORTO v. MEMBERS OF BOARD OF INQUIRY NACHURA, J.
Due process is not a mantra, the mere invocation of which shall warrant a reversal of a decision. Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard,[39] or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Our ruling in Filipino v. Macabuhay[40] is instructive:Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony. Petitioner was not deprived of due process in this case as he had in fact filed his Answer and a Joint Position Paper explaining to the Board the reasons for the discrepancy of the inspection and delivery date as contained in the IRR and of the actual delivery dates. He was, likewise, able to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the NPC President's decision. It bears stressing that petitioner, along with his other co-respondents, was given an opportunity during the Pre-Conference Hearing to manifest whether he would like to avail the services of counsel but he opted to remain quiet. It should also be emphasized that despite the opportunity to do so, petitioner did not present any new substantial defense other than to say that the alleged typographical error on the date of IRR was not his own doing and that his signing the IRR - error and all - was simply a case of oversight.
	GR Nos. 168578-79 2008-09-30	NIETO A. RACHO v. PRIMO C. MIRO QUISUMBING, J.
Clearly, the requirements of due process have been substantially satisfied in the instant case.[46] In its Order [47] dated December 22, 2004, the OMB warned petitioner that no further extension will be given such that if he fails to file a comment on December 28, 2004, the cases against him will be submitted for resolution. Even so, the OMB considered petitioner's belatedly-filed Comment and the documents attached therewith in its Reinvestigation Report. In our view, petitioner cannot successfully invoke deprivation of due process in this case, where as a party he was given the chance to be heard, with ample opportunity to present his side.[48]
	GR No. 167982 2008-08-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In Filipino v. Macabuhay,[17] the Court interpreted Section 20 (5) of R.A. No. 6770 in this manner:Petitioner argues that based on the abovementioned provision [Section 20(5) of RA 6770)], respondent's complaint is barred by prescription considering that it was filed more than one year after the alleged commission of the acts complained of.
	GR No. 172580 2008-07-23	LOURDESITA M. BIBAS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Regardless of the period covered by the November 6, 2002 audit,however, petitioner is still liable for Dishonesty because the administrative case against her has not prescribed. In Filipino v. Macabuhay,[12] a case that also involved an administrative complaint before the Ombudsman, the Court ruled:Section 20 of R.A. No. 6770, otherwise known as The Ombudsman Act of 1989, states:
	GR No. 164640 2008-06-13	CYNTHIA GANA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Settled is the rule that the requirements of due process are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.[19] In the present case, petitioner, as shown above, was given this opportunity.
	GR No. 159395 2008-05-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
In Filipino v. Macabuhay,[14] the Court interpreted Section 20(5) of RA 6770 in this wise:Petitioner argues that based on the abovementioned provision [Section 20(5) of RA 6770)], respondent's complaint is barred by prescription considering that it was filed more than one year after the alleged commission of the acts complained of.