Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JENNY ZACARIAS v. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 182332 2011-02-23	MILESTONE FARMS v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT NACHURA, J.
While it is true that an issue which was neither alleged in the complaint nor raised during the trial cannot be raised for the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair play, justice, and due process,[54] the same is not without exception,[55] such as this case. The CA, under Section 3,[56] Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, can, in the interest of justice, entertain and resolve factual issues. After all, technical and procedural rules are intended to help secure, and not suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from a rigid enforcement of the rules may thus be allowed to attain the prime objective of dispensing justice, for dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.[57] Moreover, petitioner cannot validly claim that it was deprived of due process because the CA afforded it all the opportunity to be heard.[58] The CA even directed petitioner to file its comment on the Supplement, and to prove and establish its claim that the subject property was excluded from the coverage of the CARP. Petitioner actively participated in the proceedings before the CA by submitting pleadings and pieces of documentary evidence, such as the Investigating Team's Report and judicial affidavits. The CA also went further by setting the case for hearing. In all these proceedings, all the parties' rights to due process were amply protected and recognized.
	AM No. 08-19-SB-J 2010-08-24	ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ v. JUSTICES GREGORY S. ONG BERSAMIN, J.
In view of the foregoing, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez were guilty of unbecoming conduct, which is defined as improper performance. Unbecoming conduct "applies to a broader range of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice or logical procedure or prescribed method."[31]
	GR No. 146053 2008-04-30	DIOSCORO F. BACSIN v. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN
Petitioner was not denied due process of law, contrary to his claims. 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 for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[15] These elements are present in this case, where petitioner was properly informed of the charge and had a chance to refute it, but failed.
	GR No. 164460 2006-06-27	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CARMENCITA D. CORONEL PANGANIBAN, C.J.
absolute lack of notice or hearing.[29] In this case, respondent was given every opportunity to be heard. Significantly, her intelligible pleadings before the CA and this Court indicate that she knew the bases for the Ombudsman's Decision. In fact, she very ably pinpointed its alleged errors that she thought would
	GR NO. 140079 2005-03-31	AUGUSTO R. SAMALIO v. CA CORONA, J.
We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[21] And any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.[22] Denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.[23]
	GR NO. 140746 2005-03-16	PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[11]