Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    Spouses Chua v. Tan-Sollano

    Uploaded by

    Sultan Kudarat State University
    1) Spouses Chua filed an administrative complaint against respondents for dismissing their complaint of perjury and false testimony against Atty. Tasarra and others. 2) The respondents were found not administratively liable because the Spouses Chua failed to present substantial evidence to prove the prosecutors' culpability. 3) Errors by judges in their adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but rather through judicial remedies, and the same principle applies to prosecutors. An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy when judicial recourse is still available.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Chua v. Tan-Sollano

    Uploaded by

    Sultan Kudarat State University
    103 views1 page
    1) Spouses Chua filed an administrative complaint against respondents for dismissing their complaint of perjury and false testimony against Atty. Tasarra and others. 2) The respondents were found not administratively liable because the Spouses Chua failed to present substantial evidence to prove the prosecutors' culpability. 3) Errors by judges in their adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but rather through judicial remedies, and the same principle applies to prosecutors. An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy when judicial recourse is still available.

    Original Title

    15. Spouses Chua v. Tan-Sollano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Spouses Chua filed an administrative complaint against respondents for dismissing their complaint of perjury and false testimony against Atty. Tasarra and others. 2) The respondents were found not administratively liable because the Spouses Chua failed to present substantial evidence to prove the prosecutors' culpability. 3) Errors by judges in their adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but rather through judicial remedies, and the same principle applies to prosecutors. An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy when judicial recourse is still available.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    103 views1 page

    Spouses Chua v. Tan-Sollano

    Uploaded by

    Sultan Kudarat State University
    1) Spouses Chua filed an administrative complaint against respondents for dismissing their complaint of perjury and false testimony against Atty. Tasarra and others. 2) The respondents were found not administratively liable because the Spouses Chua failed to present substantial evidence to prove the prosecutors' culpability. 3) Errors by judges in their adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but rather through judicial remedies, and the same principle applies to prosecutors. An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy when judicial recourse is still available.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Administrative Law Case Digest Pasquin, Irish Mae

    Sps. Chua vs. SKCP Tan-Sollano


    FACTS: Spouses Chua filed an administrative complaint against the respondents for
    dismissing their complaint against Atty. Tasarra and others for perjury and False Testimony.
    According to the spouses, the dismissal of their complaint was highly irregular as the
    prosecution presented an airtight case.
    ISSUE/S: WON the respondents should be held administratively liable.
    HELD: No.

    In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving with substantial
    evidence the allegations in the complaint. Mere allegation is not evidence and is not
    equivalent to proof."

    Here, considering that Spouses Chua failed to present substantial proof to show the
    prosecutors' culpability, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that the instant
    administrative case was ill motivated being retaliatory in nature and aimed at striking back at
    them for having participated in the dismissal of XV-07-INV-15J-05513, either as
    investigating prosecutor or approving officer. In the absence of contrary evidence, what will
    prevail is the presumption that the prosecutors involved herein have regularly performed their
    official duties.

    Moreover, in Maquiran v. Judge Grageda,   the Court held that alleged error committed by
    judges in the exercise of their adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through
    administrative proceedings but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies. 1Here,
    the same principle applies to prosecutors who exercise adjudicative functions in the
    determination of the existence of probable cause to hold the accused for trial in court.

    Verily, an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is


    still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari.  In
    the present case, as narrated by Spouses Chua, XV-07-INV-15J-05513 is still pending and
    active. As such, Spouses Chua still has remedies to contest said ruling.

    You might also like