This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, the Court disagrees on petitioner's contention that the issue of sexual harassment is better addressed in the pending criminal case for sexual harassment before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, for to do so in an administrative proceedings would be unfair, unjust and extremely unreasonable. It bears to stress that administrative and criminal charges filed before the Office of the Ombudsman and the trial court, respectively, are separate and distinct from each other even if they arise from the same act or omission. This is because the quantum of proof required in criminal cases is proof beyond reasonable doubt, while in administrative cases, only substantial evidence is required. Moreover, the purpose of the administrative proceedings is mainly to protect the public service, based on the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust. On the other hand, the purpose of the criminal prosecution is the punishment of crime.[44] Thus, even the dismissal of a criminal case does not necessarily foreclose the administrative action against the respondent.[45] | |||||
|
2014-02-26 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| case mainly because the quantum of evidence required to support a finding of guilt in a criminal case is proof beyond reasonable doubt. Administrative cases are, as a rule, separate and independent from criminal suits and are governed by differing evidentiary criteria. The acquittal of an accused who is also a respondent in an administrative case does not conclude the administrative proceedings, nor carry with it relief from administrative liability. This is because unlike in criminal cases where the threshold quantum of evidence required is proof beyond reasonable doubt, only substantial evidence is necessary in administrative cases.[61] b. Evidence against petitioner Hernandez | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The power of the Ombudsman to directly impose administrative sanctions has been repeatedly reiterated in the subsequent cases of Barillo v. Gervasio,[26] Office of the Ombudsman v. Madriaga,[27] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[28] Balbastro v. Junio,[29] Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. 13, Butuan City v. Hinampas,[30] Office of the Ombudsman v. Santiago,[31] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lisondra,[32] and most recently in Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas v. Abugan[33] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. | |||||
|
2008-03-24 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The power of the Office of the Ombudsman to directly impose administrative sanctions was again affirmed in the recent cases of Barillo v. Gervasio,[21] Office of the Ombudsman v. CA[22] and Balbastro v. Junio.[23] | |||||
|
2007-07-17 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court reiterated the Ledesma and Estarija rulings in Barillo v. Gervasio[16] and in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[17] | |||||