Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIVIDAD E. BAUTISTA v. CA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 180543 2010-07-27	KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION v. LEONCIO M. JANOLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
The disallowance of a motion for postponement is not sufficient to show arbitrariness and partiality of the trial court.[43] For one, the grant of such is not a matter of right for it is addressed to the sound discretion of the court.[44] Parties have absolutely no right to assume that their motion for deferment would be granted, hence, they should prepare for the hearing, lest they pass the blame to no one but themselves.
	GR No. 127980 2007-12-19	DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY v. CA REYES, R.T., J.
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.[67] Notice and hearing is the bulwark of administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be respected even in administrative proceedings.[68] 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 reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[69] So long as the party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.[70]
	GR NO. 165849 2007-12-10	GILBERT G. GUY v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
But neither of the parties bothered to file the required comment. Their allegation that they have been deprived of due process is definitely without merit. We have consistently held that when a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process for by such failure, he is deemed to have waived or forfeited his right to be heard without violating the constitutional guarantee.[18]
	GR NO. 129434 2006-08-18	TRANS MIDDLE EAST EQUITIES v. SANDIGANBAYAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Second, on petitioner's contention that it was denied due process, let it be stressed that where a party was given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.[6]
	GR NO. 148150 2006-07-12	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILHINO SALES CORPORATION CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Moreover, the grant of a motion for continuance or postponement is not a matter of right.[26] It is addressed to the sound discretion of the courts. Parties asking for postponement have no right to assume that their motions would be granted nor to expect that their motion for reconsideration of their denied motion for postponement would be reconsidered.[27] Thus, they must be prepared on the day of the hearing.[28] Action thereon will not be disturbed by appellate courts, in the absence of clear and manifest abuse of discretion resulting in a denial of substantial justice.[29] In other words, this Court cannot make a finding of grave abuse of discretion simply because a court decides to proceed with the trial of a case rather than postpone the hearing to another day because of the absence of a party or a party's witness.[30] To constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the refusal of the court to postpone the hearing must be characterized by arbitrariness or capriciousness which is totally absent in the case under consideration.
	GR NO. 143721 2005-08-31	TERESITA E. VILLALUZ v. ROLANDO R. LIGON AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We have held that due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard.[39] The essence of due process is that a party is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit any evidence one may have in support of one's defense.[40] Where the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded and the party can present its side or defend its interest in due course, there is no denial of due process.[41] Indeed, where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.[42] If said opportunity is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[43]
	AM NO. P-97-1258 2005-01-31	OCA v. CLERK OF COURT ERMELINA C. BERNARDINO PER CURIAM
The records show respondent Tuazon failed to faithfully perform her duties as cash clerk. The question now is: Can she be held administratively liable despite her failure to answer the charge against her? The Court rules in the affirmative. Respondent Tuazon was given the opportunity to refute the charge against her, but she failed to do so. The essence of due process is that a party is afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[51] What the law proscribes is lack of opportunity to be heard.[52] Where the opportunity to be heard has been accorded, there is no denial of due process.[53] If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee.[54]