Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RODOLFO ZALDARRIAGA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 188638 2015-12-09	PHILIPPINE TRANSMARINE CARRIERS v. JOSELITO A. CRISTINO PEREZ, J.
Here, the respondent did not just rely on the presumption of work-relation but was able to substantiate the claims for compensation and benefits by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is that amount of "relevant evidence [which] a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."[61] It is that degree of proof required to support claims for compensation in labor cases.[62]
	GR No. 204757 2015-03-17	ATTY. JANET D. NACION v. COA REYES, J.
In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence that is necessary to declare a person administratively liable is mere substantial evidence.[25] This is defined under Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, to wit:Sec. 5. Substantial evidence. In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Emphasis ours)
	GR No. 183161 2014-12-03	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. AMALIO A. MALLARI MENDOZA, J.
With the aforecited GSIS policies and procedures as guidelines and the basic rule that, in administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence,[43] the Court assesses the liability of Mallari in this administrative case.
	GR No. 188909 2014-09-17	REPUBLIC v. FLORENDO B. ARIAS PEREZ, J.
Substantial evidence does not necessarily mean preponderant proof as required in ordinary civil cases, but such kind of relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion or evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs.[7]
	GR No. 172334 2013-06-05	DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA v. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO REYES, J.
In administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence. Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court defines substantial evidence as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[18]
	GR No. 183445 2011-09-14	OFFICE OF PRESIDENT v. CALIXTO R. CATAQUIZ MENDOZA, J.
The one-paragraph pronouncement of the CA that Cataquiz had authority to perform the acts complained of is grossly insufficient to overturn the determination by PAGC that he should be punished for acts prejudicial to the LLDA committed during his service as General Manager of the said agency. It should be emphasized that findings of fact of administrative agencies will not be interfered with and shall be considered binding and conclusive upon this Court provided that there is substantial evidence to support such findings.[29] Substantial evidence has been defined as "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion"[30] or "evidence commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs."[31]