This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-07-31 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Besides, any supposed procedural flaw in the proceedings before the Committee was deemed cured when petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. Due process, as a constitutional precept, is satisfied when a person was notified of the charge against him and was given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.[34] The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[35] It cannot be denied that petitioners were properly notified of the charges filed against them and were equally afforded the opportunity to present their side. | |||||
|
2012-09-04 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| At the outset, the Court finds no cause for petitioner Gonzales to complain simply because the OP proceeded with the administrative case against him despite his non-attendance thereat. Petitioner was admittedly able to file an Answer in which he had interposed his defenses to the formal charge against him. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.[55] Due process is simply having the opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[56] | |||||
|
2012-07-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Also, contrary to petitioner's assertions, his right to due process was not violated when the IAD-ODESLA took cognizance of the administrative complaint against him since he was given sufficient opportunity to oppose the formal complaint filed by Secretary Purisima. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process,[35] which simply means having the opportunity to explain one's side.[36] Hence, as long as petitioner was given the opportunity to explain his side and present evidence, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with because what the law abhors is an absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.[37] The records show that petitioner was issued an Order requiring him to submit his written explanation under oath with respect to the charge of grave misconduct filed against him. His own failure to submit his explanation despite notice defeats his subsequent claim of denial of due process. | |||||
|
2012-01-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| While the rule admits of certain exceptions, such as when the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides that pending actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it would impair vested rights, petitioners failed to show that application of A.O. No. 17 to their case would cause injustice to them. Indeed, in this case, the Office of the Ombudsman afforded petitioners every opportunity to defend themselves by allowing them to submit counter-affidavits, position papers, memoranda and other evidence in their defense. Since petitioners have been afforded the right to be heard and to defend themselves, they cannot rightfully complain that they were denied due process of law. Well to remember, due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. It is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. More often, this opportunity is conferred through written pleadings that the parties submit to present their charges and defenses.[34] But as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his or her interests in due course, said party is not denied due process.[35] | |||||
|
2011-05-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Time and again, we have held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[21] In the application of the principle of due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to be heard.[22] As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process.[23] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| To avail of such remedies, petitioner may file against private respondents a complaint for damages with the regular courts[38] or an administrative case with the PNP/DILG,[39] as petitioner did in Administrative Case No. IASOB-020007, and not a criminal action with the Ombudsman. | |||||
|
2006-11-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interests in due course, he was not denied due process.[19] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||