Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RAY PETER O. VIVO v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 198140 2016-01-25	ERWIN L. MAGCAMIT v. INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE - PDEA BRION, J.
In administrative proceedings, the requirement of due process is satisfied if the party has had the opportunity to be heard.[77] If the party has been given the right to controvert the allegations and evidence against him, as when the party is able to file a motion for reconsideration, there is no deprivation of due process.
	GR No. 215847 2016-01-12	GOV. EXEQUIEL B. JAVIER v. COMELEC BRION, J.
Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[18] A formal hearing is not always necessary and the observance of technical rules of procedure is not strictly applied in administrative proceedings.[19] The essence of administrative due process is the right to be heard and to be given an opportunity to explain one's side.[20] Where the Commission hears both sides and considers their contentions, the requirements of administrative due process are complied with.
	GR No. 204172 2015-12-09	HERMOGENES E. EBDANE v. ALVARO Y. APURILLO PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation,[49] the Court ruled that any procedural defect in the proceedings taken against the government employee therein was cured by his filing of a motion for reconsideration and by his appealing the adverse result to the administrative agency (in that case, the Civil Service Commission [CSC]).[50] Also, in Gonzales v. CSC,[51] it was held that any defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who was afforded the opportunity to be heard.[52] Similarly, in Autencio v. Mañara,[53] the Court observed that defects in procedural due process may be cured when the party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[54]
	GR No. 169343 2015-08-05	SAN MIGUEL PROPERTIES v. BF HOMES LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
[51] Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, G.R. No. 187854, November 12, 2013 709 SCRA 276, 281.
	GR No. 202331 2015-04-22	PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA v. HILARIO M. MARCO LEONEN, J.
Here, the Province failed to refute that it received a copy of the Civil Service Commission's April 14, 2008 Resolution. It was given an opportunity to be heard, which is the essence of administrative due process.[103] It did not even justify why it failed to file a motion for reconsideration despite its receipt of the Civil Service Commission's Resolution. Contrary to the Province's claim, there was no extrinsic fraud since the Province was not prevented "from fully and fairly presenting [its] defense[.]"[104] The Civil Service Commission correctly denied the Province's Petition for Relief.
	GR No. 194061 2015-04-20	EMELIE L. BESAGA v. SPS. FELIPE ACOSTA AND LUZVIMINDA ACOSTA AND DIGNA MATALANG COCHING BRION, J.
Administrative due process means reasonable opportunity to be heard. As held in Vivo v. Pagcor.[32]
	GR No. 209283 2015-03-11	CECILIA RACHEL V. QUISUMBING v. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES BRION, J.
The petition also fails with respect to the petitioner's claim of denial of due process. There can be no denial of due process where a party was afforded an opportunity to present his case.[6] In the present case, the petitioner was given ample opportunity to air her side on the allegations against her after being sufficiently apprised of the allegations against her; she was afforded the chance to submit her written explanation. Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to avail of that right, and chose to directly seek the intervention of this Court. These circumstances, by themselves, point the prematurity of the petition.
	GR No. 192866 2014-07-09	PEDRO G. RESURRECCION v. PEOPLE BRION, 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.[38] For as long as the parties are given the opportunity to present their cause of defense, their interest in due course as in this case, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.