This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-08-10 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| This Court has already ruled in the past that willful concealment of facts in the PDS constitutes mental dishonesty amounting to misconduct.[10] Likewise, making a false statement in one's PDS amounts to dishonesty and falsification of an official document.[11] The omission of the names of her children in her PDS is an act of dishonesty, which merits the imposition of penalties provided for under the law. Further, even as respondent knowingly provided incomplete information in her PDS, she signed the undertaking attesting that the same was true, correct and complete. | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We find no cogent reason to overturn the above findings of the appellate tribunal. The question of whether substantial evidence had been presented to allow immediate recourse to the regular courts is a question of fact which is beyond this Court's power of review for it is not a trier of facts.[68] None of the exceptions[69] in which this Court may resolve factual issues has been shown to exist in this case. Even if we evaluate their arguments and the evidence they presented once again, the same conclusion will still be reached. | |||||