Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MA. ROSARIO L. BATONGBAKAL v. SIMEON ZAFRA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 180141 2011-05-31	RIMANDO A. GANNAPAO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner's assertion that the complainants/witnesses against him have not been cross-examined by him, is likewise bereft of merit. While the right to cross-examine is a vital element of procedural due process, the right does not necessarily require an actual cross examination but merely an opportunity to exercise this right if desired by the party entitled to it.[27] In this case, while Memorandum Circular No. 96-010 provides that the sworn statements of witnesses shall take the place of oral testimony but shall be subject to cross-examination, petitioner missed this opportunity precisely because he did not appear at the deadline for the filing of his supplemental answer or counter-affidavit, and accordingly the hearing officer considered the case submitted for decision. And even with the grant of his subsequent motion to be furnished with copy of complaint and its annexes, he still failed to file a supplemental answer or counter-affidavit and instead filed a motion to dismiss reiterating the previous recommendation for dismissal made by Atty. Casugbo. Moreover, after the PNP Director General rendered his decision, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. He was also able to appeal from the decision of the PNP Director General to the DILG Secretary, and eventually to the CSC. We have held that the fact that a party filed motions for reconsideration and appeals with the tribunals below, in which she presented her arguments and through which she could have proffered her evidence, if any, negates her claim that she was denied opportunity to be heard.[28]
	AC. No. 5768 2010-03-26	ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON v. ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER ABAD, J.
Contrary to Atty. Ferrer's allegation, the Court finds that he has been accorded due process. 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.[18] So long as the parties are given the opportunity to explain their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with.[19] Here, the IBP Investigating Commissioner gave Atty. Ferrer all the opportunities to file countless pleadings and refute all the allegations of Atty. Barandon.
	GR NO. 168498 2006-06-16	RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. CIR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
It is basic that as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he would have no reason to complain, for it is this opportunity to be heard that makes up the essence of due process.[19] In Batongbakal v. Zafra,[20] the Court held that: 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. (Emphasis supplied) As correctly pointed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the CTA Second Division set the case for hearing on April 2, 2004 after the filing by the petitioner of its petition for relief from judgment. Petitioner's counsel was present on the scheduled hearing and in fact orally argued its petition.
	GR NO. 141323 2005-06-08	DAVID V. PELAYO v. MELKI E. PEREZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We have consistently held that a petitioner's right to due process is not violated where he was able to move for reconsideration of the order or decision in question.[19] In this case, petitioners had the opportunity to fully expound on their defenses through a motion for reconsideration. Petitioners did file such motion but they wasted such opportunity by failing to present therein whatever errors they believed the CA had committed in its Decision. Definitely, therefore, the denial of petitioners' motion for reconsideration, praying that they be allowed to file appellees' brief, did not infringe petitioners' right to due process as any issue that petitioners wanted to raise could and should have been contained in said motion for reconsideration.