This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioners' arguments have no merit. The appellate court correctly ruled that petitioners were given the opportunity to be heard. They filed their Comment/Opposition and a petition for review before the SEC en banc. Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[24] Also, the SEC en banc is not required to come up with its own findings since findings of the Hearing Officer shall remain undisturbed unless the SEC en banc finds manifest errors. Sec. 16-7 of the Rules also states that proceedings before the SEC en banc shall be summary in nature. | |||||
|
2008-02-13 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| x x x This Court's consistent policy has been to maintain non-interference in the determination of the Ombudsman of the existence of probable cause, provided there is no grave abuse of discretion. This observed policy is based not only on respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the court will be seriously hampered by innumerable proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped with cases if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant.[16] Thus, finding no strong reason to disturb the factual findings of the Ombudsman, we find no error on the part of the CA in upholding the dismissal of the criminal complaints against Cerilles and dela Peña. | |||||
|
2006-07-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioners Berbosos were not notified of the application for Conversion Order filed by private respondents Carloses, this lack of notice had been cured[56] when they actively intervened and participated in the proceedings before the DARAB, the PARAB, the Office of the President, and the Court of Appeals. The petitioners Berbosos made appeals and had also repeatedly moved for the reconsideration of each decision that was adverse to them. Time and again, we ruled that what is repugnant to due process is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.[57] The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[58] Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[59] | |||||