This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the present case, the Investigating Justice found Gacad's narration, that she met and talked with Judge Clapis in the Golden Palace Hotel, as credible. Gacad categorically and unwaveringly narrated her conversation with Judge Clapis and Arafol. On the other hand, Judge Clapis merely denied Gacad's allegation during the hearing conducted by the Investigating Justice, but not in his Comment, and without presenting any evidence to support his denial. It is a settled rule that the findings of investigating magistrates are generally given great weight by the Court by reason of their unmatched opportunity to see the deportment of the witnesses as they testified.[9] The rule which concedes due respect, and even finality, to the assessment of credibility of witnesses by trial judges in civil and criminal cases applies a fortiori to administrative cases.[10] | |||||
|
2012-07-17 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the present case, the Investigating Justice found Gacad's narration, that she met and talked with Judge Clapis in the Golden Palace Hotel, as credible. Gacad categorically and unwaveringly narrated her conversation with Judge Clapis and Arafol. On the other hand, Judge Clapis merely denied Gacad's allegation during the hearing conducted by the Investigating Justice, but not in his Comment, and without presenting any evidence to support his denial. It is a settled rule that the findings of investigating magistrates are generally given great weight by the Court by reason of their unmatched opportunity to see the deportment of the witnesses as they testified.[9] The rule which concedes due respect, and even finality, to the assessment of credibility of witnesses by trial judges in civil and criminal cases applies a fortiori to administrative cases.[10] | |||||