Posted by: Jan Placido III on July 26, 2018
FACTS:
FACTS:
Respondent Arne! A. Bernardo was hired by the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on September 3, 1979 and therein rendered continuous and uninterrupted service until his promotion to his present position as Attorney V with Salary Grade of 25 and assigned as Technical Assistant at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue – Criminal Prosecution Group. Primarily, the respondent derived his income from his employment with the BIR.
Bernardo was administratively and civilly charged with acquiring unexplained wealth by the FFIB (hereafter, the "OMBUDSMAN"). The ombudsman rendered a decision which held Bernardo Guilty of dishonesty in accordance with the provision of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019, in relation to Republic Act No. 1379. Bernardo elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which, in turn, reversed the OMBUDMAN'S decision. The OMBUDSMAN filed a petition in the supreme court alleging that there are factual and legal bases to uphold its findings, particularly as to the administrative liability for Dishonesty of respondent.
ISSUE:
Bernardo was administratively and civilly charged with acquiring unexplained wealth by the FFIB (hereafter, the "OMBUDSMAN"). The ombudsman rendered a decision which held Bernardo Guilty of dishonesty in accordance with the provision of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019, in relation to Republic Act No. 1379. Bernardo elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which, in turn, reversed the OMBUDMAN'S decision. The OMBUDSMAN filed a petition in the supreme court alleging that there are factual and legal bases to uphold its findings, particularly as to the administrative liability for Dishonesty of respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is substantial evidence to hold respondent liable for the charge of Dishonesty.
HELD:
HELD:
The petition is without merit. Administrative proceedings are governed by the "substantial evidence rule." Otherwise stated, a finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that the respondent has committed acts stated in the complaint. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise.8
As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts.9 When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the findings set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.
The issue of whether or not there is substantial evidence to hold respondent liable for the charge of Dishonesty is one of fact, which is not generally subject to review by this Court. Nonetheless, a review of the facts of the instant case is warranted considering that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals were not in harmony with each other.
As a general rule, only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari because the Court is not a trier of facts.9 When supported by substantial evidence, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on the parties and are not reviewable by this Court, unless the case falls under any of the following recognized exceptions: (1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the findings set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by evidence on record.
The issue of whether or not there is substantial evidence to hold respondent liable for the charge of Dishonesty is one of fact, which is not generally subject to review by this Court. Nonetheless, a review of the facts of the instant case is warranted considering that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals were not in harmony with each other.
