This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. As long as the parties are given the opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered, the demands of due process are sufficiently met.[13] What is offensive to due process is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.[14] This Court has repeatedly stressed that parties who choose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges against them cannot complain of a denial of due process.[15] Having persisted in his refusal to file his pleadings and evidence before the PAGC, respondent cannot validly claim that his right to due process was violated. | |||||
|
2008-04-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| There is nothing improper in suspending an officer pending his investigation and before the charges against him are heard.[55] The immediate issuance of such order is required to prevent the subject of the suspension from committing further irregularities. Such prompt action, moreover, is in consonance with § 15 of R.A. No. 6770 which exhorts the Ombudsman to give priority to complaints filed against high ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions, those involving grave offenses as well as those involving large sums of money and/or properties.[56] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The essence of due process in an administrative proceeding is the opportunity to explain one's side, whether written or verbal.[24] This presupposes that one has been previously apprised of the accusation against him or her. Here, respondent was deprived of both with regard to her alleged unbecoming conduct in relation to a certain statement in the birth certificate of her child. | |||||
|
2005-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The instant case filed by Catolico is an administrative case for grave misconduct against petitioner for the alleged robbery-holdup and mauling incident that took place on 22 December 1990. In resolving administrative cases, conduct of full-blown trial is not indispensable to dispense justice to the parties. The requirement of notice and hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings.[49] Submission of position papers may be sufficient for as long as the parties thereto are given the opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[50] This constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of an action or a ruling.[51] It does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.[52] | |||||