Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. BERNABET A. MAALA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 186739-960 2013-04-17	LEOVEGILDO R. RUZOL v. SANDIGANBAYAN VELASCO JR., J.
It bears stressing at this point that in People v. Hilvano,[42] this Court enunciated that good faith is a defense in criminal prosecutions for usurpation of official functions.[43] The term "good faith" is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even though technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious."[44] Good faith is actually a question of intention and although something internal, it can be ascertained by relying not on one's self-serving protestations of good faith but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.[45]
	GR No. 189767 2012-07-03	PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. COA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In common usage, the term "good faith" is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious."[19]
	GR No. 178763 2009-04-21	PETER PAUL PATRICK LUCAS v. DR. PROSPERO MA. C. TUAÑO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Evidently, said issue constitutes a question of fact, as we are asked to revisit anew the factual findings of the Court of Appeals, as well as of the RTC. In effect, petitioners would have us sift through the evidence on record and pass upon whether there is sufficient basis to establish Dr. Tuaño's negligence in his treatment of Peter's eye condition. This question clearly involves a factual inquiry, the determination of which is not within the ambit of this Court's power of review under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules Civil Procedure, as amended.[70]
	GR No. 180853 2009-01-20	MANICAM M. BACSASAR v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry; an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render transaction unconscientious. In short, good faith is actually a question of intention. Although this is something internal, we can ascertain a person's intention not from his own protestation of good faith, which is self-serving, but from evidence of his conduct and outward acts.[23]
	GR NO. 150091 2007-04-02	YOLANDA O. ALFONSO v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT CARPIO MORALES, J.
Now, the quantum of proof required in an administrative proceeding is only substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[37] The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that the person indicted was responsible for the alleged wrongdoing or misconduct.[38]
	GR NO. 154765 2007-03-29	PEDRO T. BERCERO v. CAPITOL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
There is no merit to petitioner's claim of good faith in dealing with respondent. Good faith is ordinarily used to describe that state of mind denoting "honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry;[33] an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, even through technicalities of law, together with absence of all information, notice, or benefit or belief of facts which render the transaction unconscientious."[34] Being privy to the pendency of the ejectment case involving the leasehold rights of R.C. Nicolas since he was impleaded as a party-defendant in said ejectment case, petitioner cannot feign innocence of the existence thereof. Petitioner was fully aware that R.C. Nicolas had a lease contract with respondent which was subject of a pending litigation.
	GR NO. 152884 2005-09-30	DERICK D. WOODEN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
On June 6, 1997, petitioner submitted his duly accomplished Personal Data Sheet (PDS) in connection with his appointment as Teacher I of Guinzadan National High School, Bauko, Mountain Province. He indicated in Item No. 17 of the PDS that he finished his BSED from SLU with inclusive dates of attendance from 1987 to 1991; and in Item No. 18, he indicated the PBET date of examination as 1992[11]