G.R. No.

203696 June 2, 2014

JESSE PHILIP B. EIJANSANTOS, Petitioner,

vs.
SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE 156, represented by ATTY. ALLAN U.
VENTURA, Respondent.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

Questioned in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is the May 18, 2012
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA). which affirmed the July 10, 2006 Decision, 2 the
December 29, 2009 Order3 and the September 24, 2012 Resolution of the Office of the
Ombudsman (Ombudsman)4 regarding an administrative complaint for grave
misconduct which paved the way for a defraudation of the government in the amount of
at least ₱867,680.00.

The Facts

Records show that Special Presidential Task Force 156 (SPTF 156) conducted an
investigation against some public officials of the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax
Credit and Duty Drawback Center (Center)of the Department of Finance (DOF),namely:

1. Asuncion M. Magdaet

2. Mark A. Binsol

3. Annabelle J. Dino

4. Jane U. Aranas (Aranas)

5. Sylviana F. Daguimol

6. Gemma O. Abara

7. Gregoria C. Evangelio

8. Charmelle P. Recoter

9. Merose L. Tordesillas

10. Jesse Philip B. Eijansantos (Eijansantos)

11. Rowena P. Malonzo

The above-named public officials were the evaluators and examiners of the Center who
were investigated for possible grave misconduct in connection with the anomalous
issuance of thirty four (34) Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs )amounting to at least
110,194,158.00.

SPTF 156 was created by former President Joseph Estrada in October 1999 to review,
investigate and gather evidence necessary to prosecute the commission of irregularities
in the various offices and agencies of the DOF. The life of SPTF 156 was extended by
former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in October 2001. SPTF 156 was further
mandated to investigate the irregularities committed at the Center and to recover and
collect lost revenues. Pursuant to this mandate, Atty. Gerville Abanilla Reyes (Atty.
Reyes),SPTF 156 lawyer-consultant, conducted an independent investigation on the
alleged anomalous issuances of TCCs to Evergreen Weaving Mills, Inc (Evergreen).

The Center acted as the implementing/issuing body for tax credits in coordination with
the Board of Investment (BOI),Bureau of Customs (BOC) and the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR)for incentives, entitlements/availments subject to certain terms and
conditions outlined by the aforesaid agencies. In compliance with the approved Manual
of Operations in filing an application for issuance of tax credits, Evergreen submitted to
the Center the following initial documental requirements: Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC)Registration Certificate, Articles of Incorporation, Treasurer’s
Affidavit, BOI Registration Certificate, and the Terms and Conditions of Registration.

From the documents submitted, Evergreen claimed to be a legitimate business

corporation and was given the privilege of registering as a new producer of spun yarn
and woven fabrics under BOI Registration No. EP 89-727. By virtue of its BOI
registration, Evergreen was entitled to a package of incentives such as tax credits on
capital equipment purchased and on raw materials used in the manufacture, processing
or production of export products and access to bonded manufacturing/trading
warehouse system provided under the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987. Evergreen
represented that it made local purchases for the purpose of manufacturing spun yarn
and woven fabrics, which were allegedly sold to direct exporters through a common
bonded warehouse, namely, Filipino Hand Common Bonded Corporation (FHCBC).It
submitted proofs of local purchases in the form of sales invoices and delivery receipts of
the eight (8) supposed suppliers, namely: Cleveland Textile Mills, Filsyn Corporation
Indo Phil., Cotton Mills, Inc., Tangos General Merchandise, Homa Enterprise, Litton
Mills, Inc., Intertech Ventures Corporation, and Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc.
Evergreen also submitted certificates of delivery and receipts attesting to the sales
made to direct exporters. These certificates represented the bases of Evergreen’s
claims under the Advanced Tax Credit Scheme (ATCS), otherwise known as
Constructive Exportation.

Later, Evergreen’s application or claims for tax credit were examined at three (3) levels
performed and conducted by the evaluator, reviewer and recommending officer from the
Center. From January 1994 to June 1998, a total of thirty four (34) TCCs worth at least
₱110,194,158.00 were issued to Evergreen. These TCC’s were utilized either through
own use or transfer to other companies.

Based on the Investigation Report, dated March 16, 2004, submitted by Atty. Reyes, it
appeared that Evergreen’s existence was questionable. The suppliers and buyers were
in existent or could no longer be found. The sales invoices and delivery receipts which
were used as bases of the tax credit claims of Evergreen were fake and the TCC
transfers were fictitious.

For said reason, SPTF 156 Executive Director Atty. Alan A. Ventura, through a
complaint-affidavit,5filed criminal charges for Violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act
(R.A.) 3019, as amended, and Estafa Thru Falsification of Public Documents, against
those involved in the aforesaid anomalous transactions, and likewise administrative
charges for grave misconduct against the public officials abovementioned.

On July 10, 2006, the Prosecution and Monitoring Bureau (PAMB)of the Ombudsman
rendered a decision,6 finding Asuncion M. Magdaet (Magdaet),Mark A. Binsol,
Annabelle J. Dino, Aranas, Sylviana F. Daguimol, Gemma O. Abara,Gregoria C.
Evangelio, Charmelle P. Recoter, Merose L. Tordesillas, Eijansantos, and Rowena P.
Malonzo guilty of grave misconduct with the penalty of dismissal from the service
including all its accessory penalties and without prejudice to criminal prosecution.

The PAMB stated, among others, that there was substantial evidence on record that
warranted a finding of grave misconduct against the said public officials; that there was
enough proof shown that the fraudulent release of the subject TCCs in favor of
Evergreen and its consequent transfer to at least four (4) corporations, namely: Filsyn
Corporation, Indo Phil Cotton, Manila Bay Spinning Mills, Inc., and Pilipinas Shell
Petroleum Corporation, took place because of the negligence committed by the said
public officials in the TCC application process; that the spurious and questionable
documents submitted by Evergreen in support of its claim for tax credit could have been
discovered right away if proper verification was conducted and the examinations relative
to the authenticity of the supporting documents were not deliberately disregarded; that
the respective positions of the said public officials were not purely ministerial in nature
because they were expected to examine the records and/or documents submitted
before them; that the highest authority and/or final approving authority of the TCC
applications primarily relied on their supposed expertise in checking and examining the
supporting documents submitted before them; that as responsible public employees,
they should have acted with reasonable caution on all matters entrusted to them in
order to avoid undue damage and prejudice to the government; that it could be
assumed that the said public officials participated in the grand tax scam by simply
accepting the documents submitted before them as authentic and without flaws and not
further verifying the entries made therein; and that the act of entering into fraudulent
transactions in the performance of one’s duty constituted the grave offense of grave
misconduct punishable under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases. Magdaet and Eijansantos filed their respective motions for
reconsideration, but they were denied in the PAMB Order,7 dated December 29, 2009.
Subsequently, Eijansantos filed a petition for review before the CA assailing the
decision and order of the Ombudsman. He argued, among others, that he could not be
held guilty of grave misconduct as he dutifully performed his responsibilities as
evaluator; that his duties and responsibilities basically involved the preparation of an
evaluation report submitted to his immediate superior, Aranas; that he was not privy to
the process by which the TCC was issued because its approval and release were an
altogether different duty which he did not exercise; that he performed his duties based
on the directives and manner taught to him in the Center; and that the documents
submitted by Evergreen appeared to be authentic without any hint of falsity which he
had no reason to doubt.

On May 18, 2012, the CA rendered a decision affirming the decision of the
Ombudsman. The pertinent portion of the decision reads as follows:

There is no question that one of EVERGREEN’S 34 TCCs is TCC No. 020829 which
went through petitioner’s evaluation. In his own words, his duties as evaluator included
the physical verification/inspection of manufacturing and plant facilities. To perform this
task, petitioner must go beyond the documents that reached his desk. He must not
content himself with what appeared to be regular or authentic on the face of these
documents. Surely, his specific duty to physically verify and inspect manufacturing and
plant facilities requires him to go out of his office and personally proceed to these
facilities. The question is: did he do what was required of him in this case? He himself
admits that he made his evaluation based alone on EVERGREEN’S documents that
were forwarded to him. This means he did not bother to go to the manufacturing and
plant facilities for physical verification/inspection, albeit it was explicitly required of him
as first level evaluator. The end result was he did not discover that EVERGREEN, in
fact, had no legitimate operations or even a place of business. He gave a positive
evaluation to EVERGREEN, despite the absence of veritable data which he was
required to obtain first hand through his physical verification/inspection of
EVERGREEN’S supposed manufacturing and plant facilities. He was, therefore, being
deliberately dishonest when he came out with a positive evaluation of EVERGREEN,
notwithstanding he was not armed with the complete data which he was duty bound to
obtain and verify. If this is not grave misconduct, what is? At any rate, petitioner’s
culpability was sealed when he did not notice that EVERGREEN’S specific place of
business and secretary’s certificate authorizing a certain Emerson Go to represent it,
were actually nowhere to be found in the documents that he supposedly evaluated.

The Supreme Court has aptly emphasized the highest standard of service required of
revenue officers vested with the duty to guard and ensure the flow of blood in the veins
of government, precisely because this country’s survival lies in their hands, thus:

x x x.

Indeed, if only petitioner did what was legally required of him, i.e., among them, physical
verification/inspection of manufacturing and plant facilities, he would have easily
discovered that EVERGREEN’S supporting documents were all fictitious and it had no
legitimate transactions or operations to merit the issuance of a tax credit certificate in its
favor. Petitioner would have correctly evaluated and promptly determined
EVERGREEN’S lack of capacity and fraudulent machinations to deceive the
government. If only he did his job in accord with his job description, he would have
saved the government from losing ₱867, 680.00, and more, in other transactions.

Unsatisfied, Eijansantos filed this petition for review on certiorari based on the following

GROUNDS

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST

DIVISION GRAVELY ERRED [IN] ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE
ASSAILED DECISION OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN WHICH
AMOUNTS TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION.

PETITIONER EIJANSANTOS ISNOT GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT AS

HE DUTIFULLY PERFORMED HIS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

CONSPIRACY WAS NOT DULY ESTABLISHED AS AGAINST PETITIONER

EIJANSANTOS.8

The petitioner basically argues that he cannot be held administratively liable for grave
misconduct in the performance of his official duties and responsibilities because he was
just an evaluator and not the approving authority of Evergreen’s tax credit application.
He claims that his duties and functions as an evaluator were only limited, based on his
job description a well as the directives and instructions of his superiors at the Center.
He explains that, in processing tax credit applications, he was trained and instructed by
the Center to require the applicant to submit import and export documents. He would
then prepare an evaluation report, which contained information or data on the applicant,
and a computation and recommendation for approval of the amount of tax credit
applied. Subsequently, he would submit the evaluation report to his immediate superior,
Aranas, for her review and recommendation.

The petitioner further avers that Aranas either approved, denied or approved with
corrections his evaluation report; and that upon the submission of the final evaluation
report, his participation as an evaluator of the tax credit application ends. He likewise
claims that he was just a newly hired employee at the time he processed Evergreen’s
tax credit application in November 1993 and that his designated duties for physical
verification/inspection of manufacturing facilities and plant inspections were only
included and required sometime in 1995.

The petitioner asserts that he acted in good faith when he relied on the documents
submitted to him which appeared to comply with the proper requirements for the
processing of tax credit applications. He claims that he was not negligent of his duties
and neither was there any proof shown that he was involved in a grand tax scam
conspiracy to defraud the government.
 Position of the OSG

The OSG counters that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of evidence required
to sustain a finding of fact is merely substantial evidence; that there was substantial
evidence shown that the petitioner was administratively liable for gross misconduct; that
the petitioner as evaluator and/or reviewer was not a mere stamping personnel; that his
position was not purely ministerial in nature for he was expected to examine the records
and/or the documents submitted before him; that by signing the documents, he gave an
imprimatur of approval to such applications; that by simply accepting the documents as
authentic and without flaws and not further verifying the entries made therein, it can be
deduced that the petitioner took part in allowing the grand tax scam to happen; that as
an evaluator or examiner, it was his duty to guard against tampering of documents and
padding of fictitious invoices and delivery receipts; that the petitioner’s act was an
essential ingredient in the commission of fraud against the government; that his
ignorance cannot erase his liability because he disregarded established practice rules;
that he was grossly negligent for his failure to review or verify the authenticity of the
documents which involved millions of pesos; and that he ought to live up to the strictest
standards of honesty and integrity in the public service and must at all times be above
suspicion. Finally, the OSG argues that the findings of the Ombudsman deserve great
weight and must be accorded full respect and credit.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

The long standing policy of the Court is non-interference in the powers given by no less
than the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman. Except in clear cases of grave
abuse of discretion, the Court will not interfere with the exercise by the Ombudsman of
its investigatory and prosecutorial powers on complaints filed against erring public
officials and employees. Its findings of fact are conclusive when supported by
substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight, especially when they
are affirmed by the CA. Generally, in reviewing administrative decisions, it is beyond the
province of this Court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the credibility of
witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency with
respect to the sufficiency of evidence. It is not the function of this Court to analyze and
weigh the parties’ evidence all over again except when there is serious ground to
believe that a possible miscarriage of justice would thereby result. 9 The recent case of
Conrado Casing vs. Hon. Ombudsman10is enlightening:

The Constitution and R.A. No. 6770 endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with wide
latitude, in the exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers, to pass upon
criminal complaints involving public officials and employees. Specifically, the
determination of whether probable cause exists is a function that belongs to the Office
of the Ombudsman. Whether a criminal case, given its attendant facts and
circumstances, should be filed or not is basically its call.
As a general rule, the Court does not interfere with the Office of the Ombudsman’s
exercise of its investigative and prosecutorial powers, and respects the initiative and
independence inherent in the Office of the Ombudsman which, "beholden to no one,
acts as the champion of the people and the preserver of the integrity of the public
service." While the Ombudsman’s findings as to whether probable cause exists are
generally not reviewable by this Court, where there is an allegation of grave abuse of
discretion, the Ombudsman’s act cannot escape judicial scrutiny under the Court’s own
constitutional power and duty "to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government."

Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment

tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s exercise of power must have been
done in an arbitrary or despotic manner - which must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined
or to act at all in contemplation of law – in order to exceptionally warrant judicial
intervention. The petitioner failed to show the existence of grave abuse of discretion in
this case.

In this regard, the Court agrees with the CA that there was no error committed by the
Ombudsman.1âwphi1 The record shows that there is enough evidence on record
warranting the finding of guilt for grave misconduct against the petitioner.

Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. It is defined as an intentional wrongdoing

or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a
government official. A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear
intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present. 11

In the case at bench, the petitioner does not dispute that his duties and responsibilities
as an evaluator for the wearable/textile division are the following:

a) check listing of tax credit claims;

b) preparation of evaluation reports and the computation of tax credit claims;

c) preparation of correspondence and other communication letters to

exporters/claimants;

d) attending to inquiries and assistance on specific cases; and

e) physical verification/inspection of manufacturing facilities and plant inspections

The petitioner did not deny that he evaluated and processed Evergreen’s tax credit
application which was filed and accepted by the Center on November 26, 1993 and
subsequently approved on January 5, 1994, and that TCC No. 020829 was
subsequently issued to Evergreen.
He, however, claimed that he properly followed the procedure adopted by the Center in
the processing of tax credit applications by 1] requiring the applicant to submit complete
import documents (bills of lading, commercial invoices, import entry internal revenue
declaration and BOC official receipts) and export documents (bills of lading, invoices,
bank credit memo and export declaration); 2] preparing an evaluation report which
would include pertinent information/data on the applicant, computation of the amount of
tax credit applied for; 3] submitting of the evaluation report to the immediate supervisor
recommending either the approval or denial of the particular tax credit claim; and 4]
submitting of the final evaluation report to the immediate supervisor for further action
after the latter’s approval or after the necessary corrections had been made by the
latter.

He stressed that his participation as an evaluator ended after the approval of his
evaluation report by his superiors. He added that the procedure for approval and
release of the TCC to the applicant was already beyond his function and duty as an
evaluator.

In other words, the petitioner is trying to tell us that his duties and responsibilities as an
evaluator were just limited and that he performed the same based on the directives
given by the Center and the instructions given to him by his superiors. Accordingly, he
could not be considered negligent in his duties and be adjudged guilty of grave
misconduct for the alleged tax credit scam.

The Court is not convinced.

The petitioner apparently failed in one of his duties and responsibilities as an evaluator
which was to conduct a physical verification/inspection of manufacturing and plant
facilities. While he followed the instructions and training given to him by his superiors at
the Center, he neither conducted a physical verification/inspection on the actual office
premises and the manufacturing and plant facilities of Evergreen, nor did he conduct
such verification or inspection on Evergreen’s suppliers and exporters. Definitely, as a
Senior Tax Specialist, the petitioner ought to know that there was a necessity to
thoroughly verify the authenticity of tax credit applications before processing the same.

It was not just enough for the petitioner to require a tax credit applicant to submit import
and export documents and evaluate the particular application based merely on the form
and substance of the documents submitted. He should have conducted a physical
verification/inspection relating to all important information stated therein such as the
exact address and physical location of the applicant company’s business office
including the true names, background and exact addresses of the applicant’s key
officers, as well as those of the suppliers and exporters. The petitioner should have left
no stone unturned, so to speak, in verifying such vital information. He should not have
been satisfied with his own judgment that the documents submitted to him appeared to
be correct and regular on its face. He should have dug deeper instead of just looking at
the surface in finding out the genuineness of the documents before processing tax
credit applications and finally submitting the same to his superiors.
There were numerous TCCs issued to Evergreen worth several millions of pesos.
Based on the "Summary of TCCs Issued to Evergreen" on record,12 there were several
evaluators that were assigned to handle the processing of Evergreen’s TCCs. The
petitioner was one of the evaluators who handled TCC No. 020829. It was also
established that from January 1994 to June 1998, a total of thirty four (34) TCCs worth
110,194,158.00 were issued to Evergreen. None of the evaluators, not even the
reviewers and approving authorities, were able to prevent the tax credit fraud from
happening. All of them had the same lame excuse – that the documents submitted to
them for evaluation appeared to be regular and correct and that they never conducted a
physical verification/inspection of offices, manufacturing and plant facilities.

There is no doubt that the petitioner, together with the other evaluators, committed a
deliberate disregard of established rules which can only be considered as grave
misconduct.

Flagrant disregard of rules is a ground that jurisprudence has already touched upon. It
has been demonstrated, among others, in the instances when there had been open
defiance of a customary rule; in the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in
the procurement of supplies; in the practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is
prescribed for delayed registration of marriages; when several violations or disregard of
regulations governing the collection of government funds were committed; and when the
employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given
duties. The common denominator in these cases was the employee’s propensity to
ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or her actions.13

The Court finds unacceptable petitioner’s belated explanation that his designated duty
for physical verification/inspection of manufacturing and plant facilities was only
included and required sometime in 1995. Curiously, he never mentioned this in his
pleadings - his counter-affidavit,14 motion for reconsideration,15supplemental motion for
reconsideration,16 and even his petition before the CA. Moreover, the petitioner did not
substantiate this argument by showing any written official memo, policy or circular from
the Center. Clearly, the petitioner’s argument was just a plain afterthought.

Substantial evidence is the only

quantum of evidence needed
in administrative proceedings

The OSG correctly argued that in an administrative proceeding, the evidentiary bar
against which the evidence at hand is measured is not the highest quantum of proof
beyond reasonable doubt, requiring moral certainty to support affirmative findings.
Instead, the lowest standard of substantial evidence, that is, such relevant evidence as
a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion, applies. Because
administrative liability attaches so long as there is some evidence adequate to support
the conclusion that acts constitutive of the administrative offense have been performed
(or have not been performed), reasonable doubt does not ipso facto result in
exoneration unlike in criminal proceedings where guilt must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt.17

In this case, there is ample substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the
petitioner committed an act constitutive of grave misconduct. It need not be emphasized
that from January 1994 to June 1998, a total of thirty four (34) TCCs worth at least
₱110,194,158.00 were issued to Evergreen. These TCCs were utilized either through
own use by Evergreen or transfer to other companies. Had the petitioner exercised due
care and caution, he could have discovered that Evergreen, its suppliers and buyers did
not exist or could no longer be found. The sales invoices and delivery receipts which
were used as bases of tax credit claims of Evergreen were fake and the TCCs were
transferred fictitiously. All these anomalies resulted due to the gross negligence
committed by the petitioner and his co-evaluators in handling the tax credit applications.
The petitioner, to repeat, failed to faithfully comply with his duty and responsibility to
conduct a physical verification/inspection of manufacturing and plant facilities, which
enabled Evergreen to succeed in deceiving the government in the amount of ₱867,
680.00 to its damage and prejudice.

The Court agrees with the CA and the Ombudsman that the tax credit anomaly could
have been avoided if the petitioner and his co-evaluators followed to the letter their duty
and responsibility to conduct a physical verification/inspection of Evergreen' s
manufacturing and plant facilities together with the facilities of its alleged suppliers and
exporters. A mere documentary verification should not have sufficed but, instead, an
ocular verification on the applicant's offices and manufacturing plants and facilities
should have been necessarily done. Although it is not a high policy making position, an
evaluator is, nonetheless, a very essential and sensitive one because his superior relies
on the result of his evaluation.

Public service requires integrity and discipline. For this reason, public servants must
exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and dedication to duty. By the very
nature of their duties and responsibilities, public officers and employees must faithfully
adhere to hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office
is a public trust and must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.18

In fine, the entire act of petitioner clearly points to a deliberate disregard of established
rules constitutive of grave misconduct.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
 PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.*

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion or the Court's Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

* Designated Acting Member in view of the vacancy in the Third Division. per
Special Order No. 1691 elated May 22, 2014.
1
Rollo, pp. 53-68. Penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro Javier and
concurred in by Associate Justices Andres B. Reves, Jr. and Sesinando F. Villon.
2
Id. at 110-155.
3
Id. at 177-190.
4
Id. at 70.
5
Id. at 78-90.
6
Id. at 110-155.
7
Id. at 177-190.
8
Id. at 35-36.
9
Eloisa L. Tolentino v. Atty. Roy M. Loyola, G.R. No. 153809, July 27, 2011, 654
SCRA 420, 434.
10
G.R. No. 192334, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 500, 507-508.
11
Monico K. Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No.
191224, October 4, 2011, 658 SCRA 497, 506.
12
Rollo, pp. 113-117.
13
Monico K. Imperial, Jr. v. Government Service Insurance System, supra note
11.
14
Rollo, p. 91.
15
Id. at 159.
16
Id. at 173.
17
Hon. Primo C. Miro, Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas v. Reynaldo M.
Dosono, G.R. No. 170697, April 30, 2010, 619 SCRA 653, 660.

18 Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission On Audit-Region VII, G.R. No. 180236,

January 17, 2012, 663 SCRA 133, 159.