Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

F & O AUGUSTUS Z. LEDESMA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 170512 2011-10-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ANTONIO T. REYES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals[35] elaborates on the well established doctrine of due process in administrative proceedings as follows: 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. 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.[36]
	GR No. 175115 2009-12-23	LILY O. ORBASE v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PERALTA, J.
Anent petitioner's contention that she was denied due process, this too is devoid of merit. The CA correctly concluded that petitioner's right to due process was not violated. Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always, and in all situations, require a trial-type proceeding. Litigants may be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers, memoranda or oral arguments.[30] 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, filing charges against the person and giving reasonable opportunity to the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.[31] 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.[32]
	GR No. 129036 2008-08-06	COL. ARTURO C. FERRER v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN NACHURA, J.
As regards petitioner's allegation of denial of his right to due process, it should well be remembered that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The requirements thereof are satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable chance to air their side of the controversy at hand. Deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given an opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.[17]