Category Archives: Administrative Investigation

The rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies. The admissibility of evidence and the probative weight to be accorded the same pieces of evidence are distinguised.

Posted on February 3, 2012 by Erineus

To begin with, it is well-settled that the rules of evidence are not strictly applied in proceedings before administrative bodies such as the BOM.[6] Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the rules of evidence,[7]in connection with … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Agencies, Administrative Investigation, Evidence | Tagged | Leave a comment

The quantum of evidence required in administrative cases is substantial evidence

Posted on January 25, 2012 by Erineus

Gross misconduct and dishonesty are serious charges which warrant the removal or dismissal from service of the erring public officer or employee, together with the accessory penalties, such as cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification from … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Agencies, Administrative Investigation, Administrative Law, Definitions, Evidence | Tagged | Leave a comment

Neither prior notice nor a hearing is required for the issuance of a preventive suspension order by the Ombudsman.

Posted on July 20, 2011 by Erineus

As early as 1995, this Court ruled in Lastimosa v. Vasquez[14] and Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole,[15]  that neither prior notice nor a hearing is required for the issuance of a preventive suspension order. The well-settled doctrine is solidly anchored on the explicit text of the … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Investigation, Anti Graft and Corruption, Ombudsman, Suspension | Tagged | Leave a comment

Is the Ombudsman’s power in administrative cases limited to the recommendation of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault? Accordingly, it has the power to impose the penalty of suspension

Posted on July 20, 2011 by Erineus

Citing Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman,[25] the CA declared that the Ombudsman’s power in administrative cases is limited to the recommendation of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution of a public officer or employee found to be at fault; … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Investigation, Anti Graft and Corruption, Criminal Law, Ombudsman, Suspension | Tagged | Leave a comment

Power of the Ombudsman Includes The Power To Preventively Suspend An Official Subject To Its Administrative Investigation

Posted on July 20, 2011 by Erineus

The creation of the Office of the Ombudsman is a unique feature of the 1987 Constitution.[17]  The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, are mandated to act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against … Continue reading →

Posted in Administrative Investigation, Anti Graft and Corruption, Criminal Law, Ombudsman, Preventive Suspension | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment