Substantial evidence needed in administrative cases
Administrative proceedings are governed by the
substantial evidence rule where a
finding of guilt would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by
substantial evidence that the respondent committed acts stated in the complaint.
Substantial evidence is such amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The standard of substantial
evidence is met when there is reasonable ground to believe that respondent is
responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence is not
overwhelming or even preponderant,[1] and respondent’s participation
therein renders him unworthy of the trust and confidence demanded by his
position.[43]
[1] Menor v. Guillermo, 595 Phil. 10, 15 (2008). Citations omitted.
[1] Menor v. Guillermo, 595 Phil. 10, 15 (2008). Citations omitted.
[2] Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218,
May 31, 2011. Citations omitted.