This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-06-20 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, as between the positive testimony of Lobitaña that he gave respondent commissions and/or "kickbacks" on two separate occasions, and the negative testimony of respondent's witnesses Cedeño and Banzon that no such meeting took place, we are more inclined to give credence to the former. It bears stressing that a positive testimony prevails over a negative one,[56] more especially in this case where respondent's witnesses did not even execute affidavits to attest to the truthfulness of their statements. Thus, it was error on the part of the Labor Arbiter and the CA to disregard the testimony of Lobitaña. | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2006-12-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioners contend that they were not given the opportunity to confront the witnesses against them. Petitioners must be reminded, however, that confrontation of witnesses is required only in adversarial criminal prosecutions, and not in company investigations for the administrative liability of the employee.[17] Additionally, actual adversarial proceedings become necessary only for clarification, or when there is a need to propound searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies. This is not an inherent right, and in company investigations, summary proceedings may be conducted.[18] | |||||
|
2006-10-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[26] In labor cases, it has been held that due process is simply an opportunity to be heard and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held[27] since a formal type or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential to due process the requirements of which are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of controversy.[28] | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the requirement of notice, the Labor Code provides that before an employee can be validly dismissed, the employer is required to furnish the employee with two (2) written notices: (a) a written notice containing a statement of the cause for termination to afford the employee ample opportunity to be heard and defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires; and, (b) if the employer decides to terminate the services of the employee, the employer must notify him in writing of the decision to dismiss him, stating clearly the reasons therefor.[40] Citytrust complied with the first requirement of notice when it informed petitioner through a letter, dated August 6, 1993, of the charges against him, directing him to explain in writing why his employment should not be terminated and, thereafter, to appear in a hearing to be conducted by the company to give him further opportunity to explain his side.[41] Citytrust also complied with the second requirement of notice when it sent a memorandum dated September 28, 1993, to petitioner informing him of his dismissal from employment and the reasons therefor.[42] | |||||