This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2015-01-13 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| (a) The party should be allowed to present his or her own case and submit supporting evidence; (b) The deciding tribunal must consider the party's evidence; (c) There is evidence to support the tribunal's decision; (d) The evidence supporting the tribunal's decision must be substantial or such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion";[78] (e) The tribunal's decision was based on the evidence presented or the records of the case disclosed to the parties; (f) The tribunal's decision must be based on the judges' independent consideration of the facts and law governing the case; and (g) The tribunal's decision must be rendered such that the issues of the case and the reasons for the decisions are known to the parties.[79] In sum, due process in administrative proceedings does not necessarily require a trial type of hearing. Neither does it require an exchange of pleadings between or among the parties. Due process is satisfied if the party who is properly notified of allegations against him or her is given an opportunity to defend himself or herself against those allegations, and such defense was considered by the tribunal in arriving at its own independent conclusions. This court explained in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals:[80] | |||||
|
2014-08-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As threshed out beforehand, 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.[50] Even as Jardeleza was verbally informed of the invocation of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 against him and was later asked to explain himself during the meeting, these circumstances still cannot expunge an immense perplexity that lingers in the mind of the Court. What is to become of the procedure laid down in JBC-010 if the same would be treated with indifference and disregard? To repeat, as its wording provides, any complaint or opposition against a candidate may be filed with the Secretary within ten (10) days from the publication of the notice and a list of candidates. Surely, this notice is all the more conspicuous to JBC members. Granting ex argumenti, that the 10-day period[51] is only applicable to the public, excluding the JBC members themselves, this does not discount the fact that the invocation of the first ground in the June 5, 2014 meeting would have raised procedural issues. To be fair, several members of the Council expressed their concern and desire to hear out Jardeleza but the application of JBC-010 did not form part of the agenda then. It was only during the next meeting on June 16, 2014, that the Council agreed to invite Jardeleza, by telephone, to a meeting that would be held on the same day when a resource person would shed light on the matter. | |||||
|
2013-11-12 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart of procedural due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, as applied to administrative proceedings, this means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[15] Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or trial-type hearing is not always necessary,[16] and technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals[17] elaborates on the well-established meaning of due process in administrative proceedings in this wise: x x x 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.[18] | |||||
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We support the CA's conclusion that SJO2 Almojuela was accorded the right to due process during the BJMP investigation. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings (such as the BJMP investigation) is simply the opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[63] Where a party has been given the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.[64] | |||||
|
2011-10-05 |
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] | |||||
|
2009-12-23 |
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] | |||||
|
2008-08-06 |
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] | |||||