Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FELIZARDO B. SARAPAT v. SYLVIA SALANGA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 178296 2011-01-12	HERITAGE HOTEL MANILA v. NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS IN HOTEL NACHURA, J.
Petitioner was not denied the right to due process when it was not notified in advance of the BLR Director's inhibition and the DOLE Secretary's assumption of the case. Well-settled is the rule 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.[32] Petitioner had the opportunity to question the BLR Director's inhibition and the DOLE Secretary's taking cognizance of the case when it filed a motion for reconsideration of the latter's decision. It would be well to state that a critical component of due process is a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, for all the elements of due process, like notice and hearing, would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge.[33] It was precisely to ensure a fair trial that moved the BLR Director to inhibit himself from the case and the DOLE Secretary to take over his function.
	GR No. 183196 2009-08-19	CHONA ESTACIO v. PAMPANGA I ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Well-settled is the rule 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.[49]
	GR No. 180853 2009-01-20	MANICAM M. BACSASAR v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NACHURA, J.
It must be remembered that the essence of due process does not necessarily require a hearing, but simply a reasonable opportunity or right to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side.[16]
	GR No. 159308 2008-09-16	REPUBLIC v. PAGADIAN CITY TIMBER CO. NACHURA, J.
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. What the law prohibits is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard; hence, a party cannot feign denial of due process where he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side.[36]
	GR No. 162356 2008-04-14	DONG SEUNG INCORPORATED v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Without elaborating, petitioner also criticizes what it claims to be the personal bias and self-interest of BLR as shown by its "hasty" resolution of respondent union's appeal.[23] The Court fails to see why the BLR's speedy resolution of an appeal should be taken against it. For as long as the BLR observes due process, its proceedings cannot be impugned merely for being expeditious.[24] It is of record that the BLR allowed petitioner every opportunity to be heard. In fact, the latter was able to file a motion to dismiss the appeal and a motion for reconsideration of the August 19, 2002 BLR Decision. Clearly, although the BLR took expeditious action on the appeal, it did not sacrifice petitioner's right to due process.