This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-02-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| To repeat, due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy.[107] In the present case, there is no showing of violation of due process which justifies the reversal or setting aside of the trial court's findings. | |||||
|
2002-02-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nothing on record shows he asked for cross-examination as most of the submissions were written. In our view, petitioner cannot argue that he has been deprived of due process merely because no cross-examination took place. The rule is well established that due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or given opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[29] In the present case, the record clearly shows that petitioner not only filed his Counter-Affidavit[30] during the preliminary investigation, and later his Motion to Dismiss.[31] He also filed a Motion for Reconsideration[32] of the October 19, 1993 Order of the Commission. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[33] | |||||
|
2000-12-18 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| Respondent alleges the contrary and surmises that all that the trial judge did was to interview NBI agent Saunar who filed the application for the issuance of the warrant of provisional arrest, and that "her honor did not probably even notice that the supporting documents were not authenticated."[49] The allegation, baseless and purely speculative, is one which we cannot countenance in view of the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.[50] | |||||