This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-09-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. Such process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.[30] Rizal Commercial Bank Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue,[31] held: There is no question that the "essence of due process is a hearing before conviction and before an impartial and disinterested tribunal," but due process as a constitutional precept does not always, and in all situations, require a trial-type proceeding. The essence of due process is to be found in the reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense. "To be heard" does not only mean verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also through pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.[32] | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Second, Montemayor's argument, as well as the CA's observation that respondent was not afforded a "second" opportunity to present controverting evidence, does not hold water. 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.[32] So long as the party is given the opportunity to explain his side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with.[33] | |||||