This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, in deciding disciplinary cases pursuant to their quasi-judicial powers, administrative agencies must still comply with the fundamental principle of due process. Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them.[7] | |||||
|
2014-06-03 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Petitioner claims that Sections 8, 11, 12, 16, and 19 of the Civil Service Rules were violated by Chairperson Señeres. Petitioner misses the point that strict compliance with the rules of procedure in administrative cases is not required by law. Administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberally in order to promote their object as well as to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses.[57] | |||||
|
2008-04-30 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Administrative rules of procedure are construed liberally to promote their objective and to assist parties in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims and defenses.[17] Section 39 of the Uniform Rules provides:Section 39. The direct evidence for the complainant and the respondent consist of the sworn statement and documents submitted in support of the complaint or answer as the case may be, without prejudice to the presentation of additional evidence deemed necessary but was unavailable at the time of the filing of the complaint and the answer upon which the cross-examination, by the respondent and the complainant respectively, shall be based. Following the cross-examination, there may be re-direct or re-cross examination. | |||||