Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. EVELYN P. CAYOBIT

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AM No. SB-12-19-P 2014-11-18	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. HERMINIGILDO L. ANDAL PER CURIAM
By perpetrating his false eligibility and letting it remain on record, respondent concealed and distorted the truth in a matter of fact relevant to his office.[24] His actions thus speak of his disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.[25]
	AM NO. SCC-08-11-P 2013-06-18	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ISMAEL A. HADJI ALI PER CURIAM
An act which includes the procurement and/or use of fake/spurious civil service eligibility, the giving of assistance to ensure the commission or procurement of the same, cheating, collusion, impersonation, or any other anomalous act which amounts to any violation of the Civil Service examination, has been categorized as a grave offense of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.[21]
	GR No. 182606 2011-10-04	CESAR S. DUMDUMA v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PER CURIAM
The Court agrees with the CSC and the CA that the undisputed facts, as revealed by the evidence, make out a clear case of dishonesty against Dumduma. When Dumduma's claim of eligibility was contradicted by the CSC Register of Eligibles and the List of Passing/Failing Examinees, it became incumbent upon Dumduma to explain why he made the incorrect entry in his PDS. Unlike his PDS entry, the CSC records are presumed correct and made in the regular course of official business.[39] In explaining his action, however, Dumduma dug a deeper hole from which he could not extricate himself.
	GR NO. 143664 2006-06-30	MARISON C. BASUEL v. FACT-FINDING AZCUNA, J.
In any event, a careful perusal of the records shows that there is substantial evidence to support the Ombudsman's finding that petitioner is guilty of the offense charged against her. Incidentally, it should be emphasized that findings made by an administrative body which has acquired expertise are accorded not only respect but even finality by the Court.[25] In administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only substantial. The gauge of substantial evidence is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[26] Thus, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the findings of the Ombudsman, when supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive[27] and shall not be disturbed by the Court.[28]
	GR NO. 165253 2005-08-18	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. BERNABET A. MAALA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Civil Service Commission vs. Cayobit,[23] we held: "x x x. Dishonesty is the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duty. It is a serious offense, which reflects on the person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity (Prieto vs. Cariaga, 242 SCRA 315 [1995]). Its immense debilitating effect on the government service cannot be overemphasized.
	GR NO. 162403 2005-05-16	FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA v. ROMEO DICEN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The evidence presented by the respondent is substantial to support the finding that the petitioner is guilty of the offense charged against him. It bears stressing that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required is only substantial.[33] It is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine differently. The gauge of substantial evidence is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[34] After a careful review of the evidence on record, the Court adopts and concurs with the findings of the Ombudsman and the appellate court. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, such findings need not be disturbed.[35] Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 succinctly provides that "[f]indings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive." Moreover, such findings made by an administrative body which has acquired expertise are accorded not only respect but even finality. Thus, the appellate court committed no error in sustaining the penalty of suspension imposed on the petitioner.