This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. National Labor Relations Commission,[23] this Court held that:[A]ctual adversarial proceeding becomes necessary only for clarification or when there is a need to propound searching questions to unclear witnesses. This is a procedural right which the employee must, however, ask for it is not an inherent right, and summary proceedings may be conducted. This is to correct the common but mistaken perception that procedural due process entails lengthy oral arguments. Hearings in administrative proceedings and before quasi-judicial agencies are neither oratorical contests nor debating skirmishes where cross examination skills are displayed. Non-verbal devices such as written explanations, affidavits, positions papers or other pleadings can establish just as clearly and concisely aggrieved parties' predicament or defense. What is essential is ample opportunity to be heard, meaning, every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to prepare adequately for his defense. After the filing of the Complaint, Bungubung was allowed by the Ombudsman to submit the following: (a) a counter-affidavit refuting the charges against him; (b) a rejoinder-affidavit; and (c) a Motion for Reconsideration of the 11 January 2005 Order of the Ombudsman. Moreover, Bungubung had the option to subject the case to a formal investigation, but his Manifestation dated 21 February 2002 before the Ombudsman was evidence that he did not choose to do so and, instead, agreed to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the affidavits on record. These facts establish that Bungubung was not deprived of his right to due process, having ample opportunity to present his side before the Ombudsman. In fact, it was only later on in a Manifestation filed on 25 February 2002 that Doromal changed his mind and informed the Ombudsman that he was opting instead for the conduct of a formal investigation. | |||||
|
2006-04-07 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Moreover, granting arguendo that private respondent was entitled to financial assistance, petitioners protest the amount of the financial assistance awarded by the Court of Appeals for being disproportionately excessive. Petitioners cite Manggagawa ng Komunikasyon sa Pilipinas v. NLRC,[13] where the employee was given only P10,000 as financial assistance. | |||||