Meo \ndostrial Sales Corp ws — SSonquyond, Corp. GF. Mo. \106% Fa — _ Mit, a domestic corporation cnaaogdl in Ve ___lovsiness importing and who le satin Stain lees. 7 Steel_prodocts and enc of ils supplier Seon. S Yen, conducted —_\posiness Yorough telephone. calls ond facsimile ov tele Iransmission a hh wold send Voe o forma ine - _ a ining Hoe Rerards a tre shel product order to Moc, if Vee latter combo ris Voereko, its very resertokive SMyes his qa ——= fared copy and serds it bak bp = Ssang, ona, ou San oo ee ot yong, Yoon. Sid, oh November (6,200\, - a civil action — for damages Ave to beady of — Contract agoind Mccln its complaint, Ssanguo- : na, alleged Yoat dekerdards breah “Velo _— contvad when Yee relosed bo open Ve Ve in Yoe_amount of v8 $170,000.00 fer he remaining (QOMT of steel under pw Forma. = Aker trial on the merits, Woo RIC ene decd devesion in Souoe of Ssoma. yong. On al, Ye CA vender Vecesion akSiemiva, She colina, of You trial cout, lout __abosalyina, Chan “oS amy liability — on ASS) a — Wlaek lev ov wot CA erred in custorning foe adeni s¢i bile, in_evidence of cpro- fora in- voices despite. Yoo faut that same were mere 4 Wvicrory[No: (DATE Pliclocepies of fosimile geitoots. Rou Ne: — Mes, oe definitions under Electvonic Com- mere AA of 2000, ilo \¥R anh oles on Clectro- wic Evidence, at Pirsd lance y convey, Yoo ‘vaupeession _ Vook Sacsimile bransmissions are ele — twnic dota imesbages or dleckvonic documents because Yoew ore sent low elechowic_wmeans. Elecho- wic Qata vneans “ye vss not limited to And to tele isto send a Lowment from one person — pla awolner via fax madhine.”” re _ \ncidertally , oe ational Slatistical Ceordl- nation Board Task force on Ye Heasvrevnent of & Commerce , recommended a_warkina, defination f “elechvomic commerce” ee We, Hoorelore , conclude Yuu de terms * elecdvowic Bator message” and” clectyonic Bovoment” omd cannot be considered elechonic evidence by Yoe Court, wit greater reason isa pesto: _ copy, of such fox travsmisvion wot ecleclonic - evidence. In the present cose, Pro Tora \nvoice —_whidh are mere “proto copies ot Yoo original — transmittals, are nol electrouic evidence, contrary, do Hoe position of batty He frial andl the Vvicrory[NOs (DATE: a AM RT) - 08-28 — __Guilteree vs Sodige Belen. Faas: _ _ = _ _Gormplainant cloacae oe He ad yri vist wate _ Case against Safes Belen ot Hoe RIG, Branch 26, ee Calamba, La.quna chargiva, trim with Unbecomi- 9, Covbuct “and lor Varagnenb. Complainant work oS postman for _more Yoon 20 yeas. He was _assianed at VYne Yost olbce to_Kawminos , La gona for {keen upers 5_ard Nolte banshee fo San Pablo, Logone. Mer consulting, Poskmaster, complainant __ —_taforimed Rodel Belen and Francisca Maloles Voit Ne wok not stan Yoo afi doit. Mt aloouk 8:0) um of Yoo sane daw, _counplainart received a a “plnaee call from respondent judo. According So — him , respondent jvdge Was very, angry, and —_obercd Yee Invechve , “ponucta ka" cand also a Yarcaterned to Sie case against \iyn. _ ISsoE: = = : _ a Whdler_or wok respondent ‘yo aded with __uulleecomi ng, _vriscov ROUNG. 2 Mo. Faced wit couflicting versions Vee (oorh Vinds Ye declarations of respondent judoe So Noe credible. It is @bvious flrut complainant Siled Vnis adlminishative case as a relaliatory measure or to. sock leverage over rargondant jodge in autici pation _of_appropriate legal achon. Wvicroryp. Adwninichodive charges mest be supportal by sue- ¢ stantial evidence or such evidence 0s a reasora- ble mind unight accept oS adequate to support a condwsion- |} must be stressed Yat in od- : wainistrative procecclivys, Yoe quantum of proof ee required to establisha cespovdient's wal Fasa- nee iS wot proof beyond reasonable doubt, _ VYoak amoowt oF celevart evidlente might accept as — adequate to. support a _condosion. “the, resumphin on & Yee respondent has regolacly falcon his dukes will o,: Applui be _foreqoing primiple, Vis Guct finds re laine tlle ora subs- — dawkal evidence. The bavis for Filancy charges alld ocwssoton , but complainant tailed fo —______prove employed duress or any form ot bevrassyeet Classy, Yrere 1's wo bav's ly impose —sancHons open vespordlint ude. _ _ Wvictory[Nos |DATE: _AVi- WA -2-des 7 A\wizor vs. Sod ge Cor pio , “Ay, galt and Mrs: Divina Gracia Parcelona. FACKS: — - Four protagonist, all working in Hae RTC of Dnwao Cily, randh Ie, are invelved in ais ad minishotive case which started when Court Sheno- ayapher_Fr lind A. Aevizar Gied o complaint against Previ ding, dodge Conpio. Complainant Erlind _ charges Veen uit dhifferent oHterses= respondent for sexual harassment, while Vali and Barcelora __ for mis conduct. a \n_ Wis comment, respondent yodlge denied Loe charqe. of Sexual harassment, particularly, — wilh esipech —‘c_alleoations about his having lelssed and making, aa amounts 40 Sexval hava csynent. — e Aooinst respoudent Ui hi, Yoe_comp laid alleagd veer garagraph oz Yrereet , ak a fe is liable “for “misconduct for callin — ning’ for foilore to take an ation on es “pile capo to him about sexual Pomssteerh ate with Rarcelona, Inher adminictratt ively vdlacd gpi ly of ank penatied for yais- ae ® wot transmitting bo the proper office. - ASSUE: Whaler or wok complawant have sufficient evickence - : Wvicrory| La NO: Jv [DATE: —— ROUN@, - a a No yon Ye part of Yre respondent ledge anh respondent Vapi = mt alee es, on Yne part of respondent Barcelona. oe has We shart off wit Yre matter of rook. Nn ad ini shvotive proceed 19s, Yoo lpurden of pro- —__vina, Yoe allegations in ee complaint rests on == copploiser While Substantial evidence would — ordinarily soMce te support a finding of gui £ The. an oA (rool ae fo | 9 Ye oak __wninistabive charges or bo establish Yne_qroond for Hoe removal of a {udleciol officer shold Hs be more Yoon vse dantial th most be _ proven beyond wasonalle dovet _ With view we Yous alee ot Yre case, _ complainant failed +o srove her oh roe _against te ocrendent jvdoe Pit quantum _ef foot a eequired under Ye speemises. Given Hots perspec Hive, Yoe dismissal of Yre comploint as againsh respondent judge for insulliciency of evidence he misconduct of respondent oyodi_ i is_also dismissed: His eviclence showed nat, _ _____vpen cing, informed of Gempaianl beef agains Sado. ‘oe, lnguired _wlot copa - cxackluyy vapitted, = a The _miscondod of Barcelona yas we a sce tt, oe loss could nave mot been intentional ee oc Yoo product oh willfl (elaviour so_as +0 - : support a chowoe of wmiscondock bu comp lor \nant's own accourtt, before she fied Yoo cae no look rdationdip between Barcelona. \t wad docs be dilliol to adi gpd Barcelona a WrictoryP i ‘| Z ' (ONE — gills eae for what appears to be _ — o Clear case of corelessvess. ee Wherefore, complains against respondents _ a ———dallge Carpio ad) Qapli_is Guan insole ney of evidence, eee ae (Wherefo re, complaint aginst respondent Bac- —— elon is adlivdld guilty of simple eqligenes _ od _|nee oy reprimanded. a - Wvicrory