Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COA v. AGAPITO A. HINAMPAS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167158 2013-01-30	VIRGINIA JUDY DY v. PHILIPPINE BANKING CORPORATION CARPIO, J.
Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the 22 July 2004 Decision[2] and the 17 February 2005 Resolution[3] of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 57331. The CA affirmed with modification the 14 July 1997 Decision[4] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 154, in Civil Case No. 58672, an action for sum of money filed by respondent Philippine Banking Corporation (Philbank) against petitioners Virginia Judy Dy (Dy), Gabriel Dy,[5] Marina International Marketing Corporation (Marina), Caezar Tanjutco (Tanjutco), Joel Alindogan (Alindogan), Efren Mercado (Mercado), and Intercontinental Cargo Specialists, Inc.
	GR No. 167982 2008-08-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. 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.
	GR No. 167982 2008-08-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. 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.
	GR No. 174826 2008-04-08	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. Engr. ALFONSO P. ESPIRITU CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, meaning that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[21] The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.[22] It is also settled that when there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman's decision, that decision will not be overturned.[23] In the case at bar, Huevos was not able to substantiate his allegations. Considering that petitioner's Decision is based on Huevos's evidence, said decision has no leg to stand on and must perforce be overturned.
	GR No. 159883 2008-03-31	DR. PEDRO F. GOBENCIONG v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The parallel holdings in Ledesma and Office of the Ombudsman would later be echoed in a slew of cases, among the latest of which were Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. 13, Butuan City v. Hinampas[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Santiago.[47]