Lawyerly

GR No. 189171

2014-06-03

SERENO, C.J.

As regards the charge of lack of impartiality, we agree with the CA's pronouncement that petitioner failed to substantiate his self-serving allegations. Mere suspicion of partiality does not suffice.[61]

GR No. 163859

2012-08-15

DR. FERNANDO A. MELENDRES v. PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

As to the Motion for Inhibition of Commissioner Buenaflor, the same is grounded on his earlier order submitting the case for resolution on the basis of pleadings on record and position papers. Said motion was properly denied as no iota of evidence had been adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his allegation of bias and partiality. Indeed, bias and partiality cannot be presumed.[17] Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There should be hard evidence to prove it, as well as manifest showing of bias and partiality stemming from an extrajudicial source or some other basis.[18]

GR No. 196425

2012-07-24

PROSPERO A. PICHAY v. OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

Finally, petitioner doubts that the IAD-ODESLA can lawfully perform its duties as an impartial tribunal, contending that both the IAD-ODESLA and respondent Secretary Purisima are connected to the President. The mere suspicion of partiality will not suffice to invalidate the actions of the IADODESLA. Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof. Bias and partiality cannot be presumed.[38] Petitioner must present substantial proof to show that the lAD-ODES LA had unjustifiably sided against him in the conduct of the investigation. No such evidence has been presented as to defeat the presumption of regularity m the perfonnance of the fact-finding investigator's duties. The assertion, therefore, deserves scant consideration.

GR No. 193459

2011-02-15

MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

The Court finds petitioner's allegations of bias and vindictiveness bereft of merit, there being hardly any indication thereof. Mere suspicion of partiality does not suffice.[26]

GR No. 168668

2009-12-16

PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. PEARL CITY MANUFACTURING COROPORATION

PERALTA, J.

It is settled that in administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.[15] The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard.[16] In the recent case of Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission,[17] the Court had the opportunity to reiterate the following pronouncements, to wit: In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.

GR No. 178520

2009-06-23

AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The essence of the due process requirement being a mere opportunity to be heard, we agree with the Court of Appeals that although respondent was given a limited time to explain his side and present evidence, he, however, was able to refute the findings of petitioner. Hence, the chance afforded to respondent, although limited, is a clear opportunity to be heard on the issue at hand.[36] What the law abhors and prohibits is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard.[37]

GR No. 171812

2008-12-24

REMIA F. BONCALON v. OMBUDSMAN

QUISUMBING, J.

First, this Court finds no basis for Boncalon's protestations that she was deprived of due process of law merely because the state auditor belatedly notified her of the alleged cash shortage. In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[14] Here, we take note that Boncalon was given every opportunity to explain her side in her letters to the state auditor dated October 5, 1998,[15] October 19, 1998[16] and December 10, 1998.[17] She was further heard in person during investigation by the graft investigating officer, as well as by the Director of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), and she was able to participate in all the stages of the administrative proceedings. Despite all these, she could not justify the averred cash shortage as of November 25, 1997.

GR No. 161910

2008-06-17

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MA. REGINA I. SAMSON

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Besides, we find that respondents were not denied due process. In administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.[25] In Casimiro v. Tandog,[26] the Court held:The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.

GR NO. 154243

2007-12-04

DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL ROBERTO LASTIMOSO v. P & SENIOR INSPECTOR JOSE J. ASAYO

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

With the foregoing peculiar circumstances in this case, respondent should not be deprived of the opportunity to fully ventilate his arguments against the factual findings of the PNP Chief. He may file an appeal before the NAB, pursuant to Section 45, R.A. No. 6925. It is a settled jurisprudence that in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.[8] In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[9] the Court stressed thus:After all, technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily devised to help in the proper and expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may be construed liberally in order to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice.[10]

GR No. 157856

2007-09-27

CONCEPCION C. ANILLO OF BARANGAY SAN NICOLAS v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS

TINGA, J,

In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.[25]

GR NO. 165788

2007-02-07

ALEJANDRO V. DONATO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 1

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The petitioner's contention that his right to due process was violated because he was not able to cross-examine the person who had custody of the PSP is unavailing. In another case, the Court addressed a similar contention by stating that the petitioner therein could not argue that she had been deprived of due process merely because no cross-examination took place.[18] Indeed, in administrative proceedings, 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.[19] Such minimum requirements have been satisfied in this case for, in fact, hearings were conducted by the CSCRO 1 and the petitioner and Arce actively participated therein and even submitted their respective evidence. Moreover, they were able to seek reconsideration of the decision of the CSCRO 1 and, subsequently, to elevate the case for review to the CSC and the CA.

	GR No. 189171 2014-06-03	EDILBERTO L. BARCELONA v. DAN JOEL LIM SERENO, C.J.
As regards the charge of lack of impartiality, we agree with the CA's pronouncement that petitioner failed to substantiate his self-serving allegations. Mere suspicion of partiality does not suffice.[61]
	GR No. 163859 2012-08-15	DR. FERNANDO A. MELENDRES v. PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
As to the Motion for Inhibition of Commissioner Buenaflor, the same is grounded on his earlier order submitting the case for resolution on the basis of pleadings on record and position papers. Said motion was properly denied as no iota of evidence had been adduced by the petitioner to substantiate his allegation of bias and partiality. Indeed, bias and partiality cannot be presumed.[17] Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There should be hard evidence to prove it, as well as manifest showing of bias and partiality stemming from an extrajudicial source or some other basis.[18]
	GR No. 196425 2012-07-24	PROSPERO A. PICHAY v. OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Finally, petitioner doubts that the IAD-ODESLA can lawfully perform its duties as an impartial tribunal, contending that both the IAD-ODESLA and respondent Secretary Purisima are connected to the President. The mere suspicion of partiality will not suffice to invalidate the actions of the IADODESLA. Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof. Bias and partiality cannot be presumed.[38] Petitioner must present substantial proof to show that the lAD-ODES LA had unjustifiably sided against him in the conduct of the investigation. No such evidence has been presented as to defeat the presumption of regularity m the perfonnance of the fact-finding investigator's duties. The assertion, therefore, deserves scant consideration.
	GR No. 193459 2011-02-15	MA. MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Court finds petitioner's allegations of bias and vindictiveness bereft of merit, there being hardly any indication thereof. Mere suspicion of partiality does not suffice.[26]
	GR No. 168668 2009-12-16	PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. PEARL CITY MANUFACTURING COROPORATION PERALTA, J.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.[15] The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard.[16] In the recent case of Pagayanan R. Hadji-Sirad v. Civil Service Commission,[17] the Court had the opportunity to reiterate the following pronouncements, to wit: In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
	GR No. 178520 2009-06-23	AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-EAST RIZAL v. ALLAN RAYMOND R. IGNACIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The essence of the due process requirement being a mere opportunity to be heard, we agree with the Court of Appeals that although respondent was given a limited time to explain his side and present evidence, he, however, was able to refute the findings of petitioner. Hence, the chance afforded to respondent, although limited, is a clear opportunity to be heard on the issue at hand.[36] What the law abhors and prohibits is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard.[37]
	GR No. 171812 2008-12-24	REMIA F. BONCALON v. OMBUDSMAN QUISUMBING, J.
First, this Court finds no basis for Boncalon's protestations that she was deprived of due process of law merely because the state auditor belatedly notified her of the alleged cash shortage. In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[14] Here, we take note that Boncalon was given every opportunity to explain her side in her letters to the state auditor dated October 5, 1998,[15] October 19, 1998[16] and December 10, 1998.[17] She was further heard in person during investigation by the graft investigating officer, as well as by the Director of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), and she was able to participate in all the stages of the administrative proceedings. Despite all these, she could not justify the averred cash shortage as of November 25, 1997.
	GR No. 161910 2008-06-17	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MA. REGINA I. SAMSON YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Besides, we find that respondents were not denied due process. In administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.[25] In Casimiro v. Tandog,[26] the Court held:The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, such as in the case at bar, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. "To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.
	GR NO. 154243 2007-12-04	DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL ROBERTO LASTIMOSO v. P & SENIOR INSPECTOR JOSE J. ASAYO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
With the foregoing peculiar circumstances in this case, respondent should not be deprived of the opportunity to fully ventilate his arguments against the factual findings of the PNP Chief. He may file an appeal before the NAB, pursuant to Section 45, R.A. No. 6925. It is a settled jurisprudence that in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.[8] In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada,[9] the Court stressed thus:After all, technical rules of procedure are not ends in themselves but are primarily devised to help in the proper and expedient dispensation of justice. In appropriate cases, therefore, the rules may be construed liberally in order to meet and advance the cause of substantial justice.[10]
	GR No. 157856 2007-09-27	CONCEPCION C. ANILLO OF BARANGAY SAN NICOLAS v. COMMISSION ON SETTLEMENT OF LAND PROBLEMS TINGA, J,
In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent's legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one's favor, and to defend one's rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality; and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected.[25]
	GR NO. 165788 2007-02-07	ALEJANDRO V. DONATO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE NO. 1 CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioner's contention that his right to due process was violated because he was not able to cross-examine the person who had custody of the PSP is unavailing. In another case, the Court addressed a similar contention by stating that the petitioner therein could not argue that she had been deprived of due process merely because no cross-examination took place.[18] Indeed, in administrative proceedings, 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.[19] Such minimum requirements have been satisfied in this case for, in fact, hearings were conducted by the CSCRO 1 and the petitioner and Arce actively participated therein and even submitted their respective evidence. Moreover, they were able to seek reconsideration of the decision of the CSCRO 1 and, subsequently, to elevate the case for review to the CSC and the CA.

HAYDEE C. CASIMIRO v. FILIPINO T. TANDOG