With the aforecited GSIS policies and procedures as guidelines and the basic rule that, in administrative cases, the quantum of evidence necessary to find an individual administratively liable is substantial evidence,^[43] the Court assesses the liability of Mallari in this administrative case.

Section 5, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court explicitly provides that in cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is defined as such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is a reasonable ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not be overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case, or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal cases, but the evidence must be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.^[44]

Contrary to the ruling of the CA, the Court finds substantial evidence to prove Mallari’s administrative liability.