Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 651 views

    U.P Vs Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342

    Uploaded by

    Nurz A Tantong
    The UP Board of Regents imposed penalties on Nadal for withholding information in his scholarship application. Nadal claimed he was denied due process when the Board reconsidered his case the day after initially ruling in his favor. The court held that due process was not denied, as university rules do not require applicants to attend board meetings discussing their cases. Additionally, only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, is required to find guilt in administrative cases. The court found Nadal had sufficiently proven to have violated his obligation to disclose all relevant information in his scholarship application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    U.P Vs Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342

    Uploaded by

    Nurz A Tantong
    651 views1 page
    The UP Board of Regents imposed penalties on Nadal for withholding information in his scholarship application. Nadal claimed he was denied due process when the Board reconsidered his case the day after initially ruling in his favor. The court held that due process was not denied, as university rules do not require applicants to attend board meetings discussing their cases. Additionally, only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, is required to find guilt in administrative cases. The court found Nadal had sufficiently proven to have violated his obligation to disclose all relevant information in his scholarship application.

    Original Description:

    Constitutional cases

    Original Title

    128. U.P vs Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The UP Board of Regents imposed penalties on Nadal for withholding information in his scholarship application. Nadal claimed he was denied due process when the Board reconsidered his case the day after initially ruling in his favor. The court held that due process was not denied, as university rules do not require applicants to attend board meetings discussing their cases. Additionally, only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, is required to find guilt in administrative cases. The court found Nadal had sufficiently proven to have violated his obligation to disclose all relevant information in his scholarship application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    651 views1 page

    U.P Vs Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 342

    Uploaded by

    Nurz A Tantong
    The UP Board of Regents imposed penalties on Nadal for withholding information in his scholarship application. Nadal claimed he was denied due process when the Board reconsidered his case the day after initially ruling in his favor. The court held that due process was not denied, as university rules do not require applicants to attend board meetings discussing their cases. Additionally, only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, is required to find guilt in administrative cases. The court found Nadal had sufficiently proven to have violated his obligation to disclose all relevant information in his scholarship application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    128. U.P.

    vs Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 644


    FACTS:
    THE UP Board of Regents imposed on Nadal the penalties of suspension for one year,
    non-issuance of any certificate of good moral character during the suspension and/or as
    long as Nadal has not reimbursed the STFAP benefits he had received with 12%
    interest per annum and non issuance of his transcript of records until he has settled his
    financial obligations with the university. The disciplinary action is meted after finally
    rendering a guilty verdict on Nadals alleged willful withholding of the following
    information in his application for scholarship tantamount to acts of dishonesty, viz: (1)
    that he has and maintains a car and (2) the income of his mother in the USA in support
    of the studies of his brothers. Nadal complained that he was not afforded due process
    when, after the Board Meeting on his case on March 28, 1993 that resulted in a decision
    of NOT GUILTY in his favor, the Chairman of the UP Board of Regents, without notice
    to the petitioner, called another meeting the following day to deliberate on the
    Chairmans Motion for Reconsideration, which this time resulted in a decision of
    GUILTY. Upon petition, Nadal was granted his action for mandamus with preliminary
    injunction.

    ISSUE: WON Nadal was denied due process.


    HELD:
    No. It is gross error to equate due process in the instant case with the sending of notice
    of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting. University rules do not require the attendance in
    BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the
    Board. At no time did respondent complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of
    the regular and special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation. Let it not
    be forgotten that respondent aspires to join the ranks of professionals who would uphold
    truth at all costs so that justice may prevail. Nadal has sufficiently proven to have
    violated his undertaking to divulge all information needed when he applied for the
    benefits of the STFAP. Unlike in criminal cases which require proof beyond reasonable
    doubt as basis for a judgment, in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, only
    substantial evidence is required, that which means a reasonable mind might accept a
    relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy