This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-10-22 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| It must be stressed that like other grave offenses classified under the Civil Service laws, bad faith must attend the act complained of. Bad faith connotes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud.[35] There must be evidence, independent of the fact of such delay, which will lead to the inevitable conclusion that it was for the purpose of singling but Tuares. The Court has consistently upheld the principle that in administrative cases, to be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against the respondent should be competent and must be derived from direct knowledge.[36] "Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on."[37] Except for the Ombudsman's deduction based on the dates of issuance of the vouchers and the checks as shown in the payroll, the records of this case are bereft of evidence that will support its view that the delay in the release of Tuares' salary indicated that she was singled out. Moreover, as correctly pointed out by the CA, "[t]he certifications issued by Acting Bookkeeper Hayde S. Momblan will show that it was not only [Tuares] who was not included in the June 2002 payrolls; there were other teachers who were not included because they failed to submit the required year-end clearance, xxx Evidently, [Tuares] was not singled out or discriminated against as insisted by her and respondent Ombudsman."[38] | |||||
|
2012-09-05 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| "[B]ad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill will; it partakes of the nature of fraud."[51] Here, although we agree with the Labor Arbiter that Kee acted in an arbitrary manner in effecting Cagalawan's transfer, the same, absent any showing of some dishonest or wrongful purpose, does not amount to bad faith. Suffice it to say that bad faith must be established clearly and convincingly as the same is never presumed.[52] Similarly, no bad faith can be presumed from the fact that Subrado was the opponent of Cagalawan's father-in-law in the election for directorship in the cooperative. Cagalawan's claim that this was one of the reasons why he was transferred is a mere allegation without proof. Neither does Subrado's alleged instruction to file a complaint against Cagalawan bolster the Iauer's claim that the former had malicious intention against him. As the Chairman of the Board of Directors of MORESCO II, Subrado has the duty and obligation to act upon complaints of its clients. On the contrary, the Court finds that Subrado had no participation whatsoever in Cagalawan's illegal dismissal; hence. the imputation of bad faith against him is untenable. | |||||
|
2011-05-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It must be remembered that this Court does not rule on allegations that are unsupported by evidence on record. This Court does not rule on allegations which are manifestly conjectural, as these may not exist at all. This Court deals with facts, not fancies; on realities, not appearances. When this Court acts on appearances instead of realities, justice and law will be short-lived.[71] This is especially true with respect to allegations of bad faith, in line with the basic rule that good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be proved.[72] | |||||
|
2007-08-31 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is axiomatic that good faith is always presumed unless convincing evidence to the contrary is adduced. It is incumbent upon the party alleging bad faith to sufficiently prove such allegation. Absent enough proof thereof, the presumption of good faith prevails.[48] In the case at bar, the burden of proving alleged bad faith therefore was on Pacific Basin, which failed to discharge its onus probandi. Without a clear and persuasive evidence of bad faith, the presumption of good faith in favor of OPMC and EBC stands. | |||||
|
2006-08-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| For moral and exemplary damages to be awarded, the party must prove bad faith. Otherwise, the presumption of good faith must be upheld.[17] In this case, the petitioners failed to prove their allegation of bad faith. Hence, we cannot award moral and exemplary damages. | |||||