This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-04-23 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Throughout his Petition, Agdeppa presents a grand conspiracy between the Office of the Ombudsman and Junia, with the Office of the Ombudsman deliberately acting upon and deciding OMB-MIL-CRIM-00-0470 (as well as OMB-0-99-1015) contrary to Agdeppa's interest and favorable to Junia's. Agdeppa sees every act or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman adverse to his interest tainted with capriciousness and arbitrariness. However, other than his own allegations, suspicions, and surmises, Agdeppa did not submit independent or corroborating evidence in support of the purported conspiracy. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. When the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his allegations, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of merit.[50] | |||||
|
2012-08-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| True, this Court has held in several cases that in the absence of substantial evidence of gross negligence of the petitioner, administrative liability could not be based on the principle of command responsibility.[21] However, in the case at bar, the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman, as affirmed by the CA, clearly establish the negligence of petitioner in the performance of his duties as head of the Electrical Division. | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the same vein, proof of the alleged damage caused by Mayordomo's act to the GSIS system and its use by the general public, is not necessary. The inaccessibility, unnecessary interruption, and downtime to the GSIS network as may be experienced by outside users, is obvious. Proof that the public was inconvenienced in using the GSIS website is not necessary in order to conclude that the unauthorized changing of IP address can produce pernicious effects to the orderly administration of government services. It is well-settled that in administrative cases, the injury sought to be remedied is not merely the loss of public money or property. Acts that go against the established rules of conduct for government personnel, [in this case, that of resorting to unauthorized and radical solutions, without clearance from appropriate parties] bring harm to the civil service, whether they result in loss or not.[34] This rule is in line with the purpose of administrative proceedings, which is mainly to protect the public service, based on the time-honored principle that a public office is a public trust.[35] | |||||
|
2011-04-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Time and again, this Court has held that charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[26] Complainant miserably failed to substantiate his allegations of grave misconduct and bribery. He merely alleged hollow suppositions to shore up his Complaint. Consequently, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the administrative complaint for lack of merit. | |||||
|
2011-03-28 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| While SSC believes that the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence of Teresa's amorous relationship, we, however, find otherwise. It is not hard to see that Estelita's claim of Teresa's cohabitation with a married man is a mere allegation without proof. Likewise, the interviews conducted by SSS revealed minors only that Teresa had an affair with a certain police officer. Notably, not one from those interviewed confirmed that such an affair indeed existed. "The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence."[26] Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial evidence."[27] Remarkably, the Memorandum itself stated that there is not enough proof to establish Teresa's alleged relationship with another man since they did not live as husband and wife. | |||||