This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2005-08-25 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We stress again that the fundamental and essential right of due process cannot be dispensed with.[17] Notice to enable the other party to be heard and to present evidence is not a mere technicality or a trivial matter in any administrative proceedings but an indispensable ingredient of due process.[18] Thus, in Marino v. Salud,[19] we held that the right "to a full and fair hearing should not be compromised." We quoted our ruling in Abalos v. Civil Service Commission[20] - | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, the opportunity to explain one's side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[21] And any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.[22] Denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.[23] | |||||
|
2003-10-24 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[18] And any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration.[19] A formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all instances essential. The requirements are satisfied where the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.[20] What is frowned upon is the absolute lack of notice and hearing. There is no denial that the essence of due process was sufficiently complied with in the present case. | |||||