This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-12-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Moreover, petitioners were not denied due process of law which, in essence, is simply an opportunity to be heard.[24] The records show that petitioners were given the chance to air their side when they filed an opposition to the writ of demolition sought by private respondents.[25] In fact, the prayer of petitioners was favorably acted upon by the trial court when it initially denied the motion for the issuance of a writ of demolition on December 4, 1990. So also, when the said December 4, 1990 order of the court was reconsidered in favor of private respondents, petitioners were again given the chance to advance their case when they interposed a motion for reconsideration.[26] Indeed, petitioners cannot claim that they were denied due process. Regardless of the outcome of the motion for reconsideration, petitioners were afforded due process of law when they were allowed to be heard. | |||||