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.

[2] Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218, May 31, 2011. Citations omitted.