This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Gauged upon the foregoing guidelines, Tolentino's gripe was unwarranted. He was not denied procedural due process. The Division had required him to provide the names of his revisors whose tasks included the raising of objections, the claiming votes for him, or the contesting of the votes in favor of his opponent. He has neither alleged being deprived of this opportunity, nor indicated any situation in which his revisors were denied access to the revision proceedings. He could not also insist that the COMELEC did not consider his legal and factual arguments; besides, he could still raise them in his memorandum should he chose to. During the revision stage, he should raise all objections, present his evidence and witnesses, and file his memorandum before the case would be submitted for resolution. Such manner of presenting his side would fully meet the demands of due process, for, as the Court has explained the nature of due process in Stayfast Philippines Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission:[41] | |||||
|
2003-10-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| This Court has explained the nature of due process in Stayfast Philippines Corporation v. NLRC:[24] | |||||