This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-10-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In the present case, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner's motion for reconsideration was not verified, the COMELEC en banc should have considered the merits of the said motion in light of petitioner's meritorious claim that he was not given timely notice of the date set for the preliminary conference. The essence of due process is to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence in support of one's claim or defense. [22] It is the denial of this opportunity that constitutes violation of due process of law. [23] More particularly, procedural due process demands prior notice and hearing. [24] As discussed above, the fact that petitioner somehow acquired knowledge or information of the date set for the preliminary conference by means other than the official notice sent by the COMELEC is not an excuse to dismiss his protest, because it cannot be denied that he was not afforded reasonable notice and time to adequately prepare for and submit his brief. This is precisely the reason why petitioner was only able to file his Preliminary Conference Brief on the day of the conference itself. Petitioner's counsel may not likewise be blamed for failing to appear during the scheduled conference because of prior commitments and for, instead, filing an Urgent Motion to Reset Preliminary Conference. | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.[13] What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.[14] This Court has repeatedly stressed that parties who choose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges against them cannot complain of a denial of due process.[15] Having persisted in his refusal to file his pleadings and evidence before the PAGC, respondent cannot validly claim that his right to due process was violated. | |||||
|
2009-07-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Jaramilla v. Commission on Elections[13] and Dela Llana v. Commission on Elections,[14] the Court affirmed the COMELEC's suspension of its rules of procedure regarding the late filing of a petition for correction of manifest error and annulment of proclamation in view of its paramount duty to determine the real will of the electorate. We have consistently employed liberal construction of procedural rules in election cases to the end that the will of the people in the choice of public officers may not be defeated by mere technical objections.[15] | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, while it is true that administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, they are bound by law and practice to observe the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them.[44] The relative freedom of the CSC from the rigidities of procedure cannot be invoked to evade what was clearly emphasized in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations:[45] that all administrative bodies cannot ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process. | |||||