This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-07-07 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| made against them; and (2) that they must have a reasonable opportunity to present their side of the matter, that is to say, their defenses against the charges and to present evidence in support of their defenses.[24] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| An employee must be informed of the charges proferred against him, and ... the normal way by which the employee is so informed is by furnishing him with a copy of the charges against him. This is a basic procedural requirement that ... cannot [be] dispense[d] with and still remain consistent with the constitutional provision on due process. The second minimum requirement is that the employee charged with some misfeasance or malfeasance must have a reasonable opportunity to present his side of the matter, that is to say, his defenses against the charges levelled against him and to present evidence in support of his defense(s).[25] One's employment is not merely a specie of property rights. It is also the means by which he and those who depend on him live.[26] It is therefore protected by the guarantee of security of tenure. And in the civil service, this means that no government employee may be removed, suspended or disciplined unless for cause provided by law[27] and after due process. Unless the constitutional guarantee of due process is a mere platitude, it is the Court's duty to insist on its observance in all cases involving a deprivation, denigration or dilution of one's right to life, liberty and property. | |||||
|
2005-12-15 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| With this mandate, we held in Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals[19] that said constitutional prohibition is a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due process and that the burden of proof is upon the employer to show the validity of the dismissal and not upon the employee to prove otherwise. | |||||