Lawyerly

GR No. 198140

2016-01-25

ERWIN L. MAGCAMIT v. INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE - PDEA

BRION, J.

Due process in administrative cases, in essence, is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling. For as long as the parties were given fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard before judgment was rendered, the demands of due process were sufficiently met.[8]

GR No. 209287

2014-07-01

MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III

BERSAMIN, J.

(5) Fifth Evidence Packet[15] containing a letter of Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Sec. Joseph Abaya addressed to Sec. Abad recommending the withdrawal of funds from his agency, inclusive of annexes; and

GR No. 147257

2013-07-31

SPS. JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E. DYCOCO v. CA

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The due process claim of petitioner-spouses has no leg to stand on. They have had ample opportunity to defend their interests in due course.[41] Stripped to its basic concept, 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.[42] Petitioner-spouses were given the chance to sufficiently state their case concerning the timeliness of the notice of appeal filed by private respondents. In particular, they submitted to the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator their Comments [on]/Opposition to the Motion to Quash/Suspend Implementation of Writ of Execution and Notice of Appeal Filed by Respondents dated September 16, 1996 and Supplemental Comments [on]/Opposition to the Motion to Quash/Suspend Implementation of Writ of Execution and Notice of Appeal Filed by Respondents dated October 3, 1996 where they argued that both the motion to quash and the notice of appeal of private respondents were filed beyond the prescribed period.[43] In the DARAB level, petitioner-spouses filed a Counter- Memorandum With Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated February 9, 1997 where they again pointed out that the appeal of private respondents was filed out of time.[44] Thus, petitioner-spouses cannot correctly claim that they were not heard on the matter.

Adm. Case No. 6475

2013-01-30

FE A. YLAYA v. ATTY. GLENN CARLOS GACOTT

BRION, J.

In Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization v. Laguesma,[39] we held that due process, as applied to administrative proceedings, is the opportunity to explain one's side. In Samalio v. Court of Appeals,[40] due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where the opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or through pleadings, is accorded, no denial of procedural due process takes place. The requirements of due process are satisfied where the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.

AC. No. 4808

2011-11-22

TERESITA T. BAYONLA v. ATTY. PURITA A. REYES

BERSAMIN, J.

It is true that a lawyer shall not be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law until she has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against her, to produce witnesses in her behalf, and to be heard by herself or counsel.[26] Contrary to Atty. Reyes' insistence, however, the IBP Board of Governors was under no legal obligation to conduct a trial-type proceeding at which she could have personally confronted Bayonla. In other words, the lack of such proceeding neither diminished her right to due process nor deprived her of the right. A formal investigation entailing notice and hearing is required in administrative proceedings for disbarment, but the imperative need of notice and hearing does not always mean the holding of an adversarial trial-type proceeding. Due process is still satisfied when the parties are afforded the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their respective sides.[27] As the Court said in Samalio v. Court of Appeals:[28]

GR No. 168008

2011-08-17

PETRONILO J. BARAYUGA v. ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES

BERSAMIN, J.

The requirements of due process in an administrative context are satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy,[27] for the essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard.[28] Here, the petitioner was accorded the full opportunity to be heard, as borne by the fact that he was granted the opportunity to refute the adverse findings contained in the GCAS audit report and that the Board of Trustees first heard his side during the board meetings before his removal. After having voluntarily offered his refutations in the proceedings before the Board of Trustees, he should not now be permitted to denounce the proceedings and to plead the denial of due process after the decision of the Board of Trustees was adverse to him.

GR No. 190795

2011-07-06

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC)

SERENO, J.

Although it is true that the ERC erred in prematurely issuing its Decision, its subsequent act of ordering petitioners to file their comments on Mallillin's MR cured this defect. We have held that any defect in the observance of due process requirements is cured by the filing of a MR. [27] Thus, denial of due process cannot be invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his MR. [28] Even though petitioners never filed a MR, the fact that they were still given notice of Mallillin's filing of a MR and the opportunity to file their comments thereto makes immaterial ERC's failure to admit their comment in the MAP2010 case. After all, petitioners' allegations in their unfiled comment could have still, easily and just as effectively, been raised in the MAP2010 case by incorporating the arguments in the comment to be filed in the MR case. It must be remembered that the standard of due process impressed upon administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. [29]

GR No. 149548

2009-12-04

ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Even granting that DAMBA-NFSW should have been given notices of the applications for exemption of Roxas & Co., the lack thereof does not necessarily mean that DAMBA-NFSW was deprived of due process that would render the proceedings in DAR Administrative Cases No. A-9999-142-97 and No. A-9999-008-98 void. The Court has 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; and any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.[101] DAMBA-NFSW cannot deny that it was able to file Motions for Reconsideration of the Orders of the DAR Secretary granting the applications for exemption of Roxas & Co. in DAR Administrative Cases No. A-9999-142-97 and No. A-9999-008-98, except that both Motions were subsequently denied by the DAR Secretary for lack of merit.

GR NO. 148600

2009-07-07

ATTY. EMMANUEL PONTEJOS v. ANIANO A DESIERTO

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. 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.[6]

GR No. 175201

2008-04-23

OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Before proceeding to the merits of the instant Petition, this Court deems it necessary to first address the allegation of Bungubung that he was denied due process by the Ombudsman. The fact that no formal hearing took place is not sufficient ground to say that due process was not afforded Bungubung. It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, including those before the Ombudsman, cases may be submitted for resolution on the basis of affidavits and pleadings. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimonies.[20] Undoubtedly, due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of,[21] which requirement was afforded Bungubung.[22]

GR NO. 154110

2007-11-23

FELIZARDO B. SARAPAT v. SYLVIA SALANGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Firstly, petitioners cannot maintain that they were denied due process. Well-settled is the rule 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 a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[22] Not all cases require a trial-type hearing. The requirement of due process in labor cases is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would prove their respective claims.[23] Thus, in Samalio v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court held:Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. 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. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.[25]

GR NO. 150157

2007-01-25

MAURICIO MANLICLIC v. MODESTO CALAUNAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

For Section 47, Rule 130[21] to apply, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the witness is dead or unable to testify; (b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests; (c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action; (d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case; and (e) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case.[22]

GR NO. 158960

2006-11-24

LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO v. F. WALTER R. MACABUHAY

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

As regards the second issue, we find that petitioner was not deprived of due process. It is well-settled that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[27] Deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard and given the opportunity to present his side.[28] In Samalio v. Court of Appeals,[29] we held:Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. 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. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.[30]

GR NO. 167033

2006-04-12

ESTRELITA 'NENG' JULIANO v. COMELEC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Rehearing is defined as a "second consideration of cause for purpose of calling to court's or administrative board's attention any error, omission, or oversight in first consideration. A retrial of issues presumes notice to parties entitled thereto and opportunity for them to be heard"[13] (Emphasis supplied). But as held in Samalio v. Court Of Appeals,[14]

	GR No. 198140 2016-01-25	ERWIN L. MAGCAMIT v. INTERNAL AFFAIRS SERVICE - PDEA BRION, J.
Due process in administrative cases, in essence, is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling. For as long as the parties were given fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard before judgment was rendered, the demands of due process were sufficiently met.[8]
	GR No. 209287 2014-07-01	MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO v. BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III BERSAMIN, J.
(5) Fifth Evidence Packet[15] containing a letter of Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) Sec. Joseph Abaya addressed to Sec. Abad recommending the withdrawal of funds from his agency, inclusive of annexes; and
	GR No. 147257 2013-07-31	SPS. JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E. DYCOCO v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The due process claim of petitioner-spouses has no leg to stand on. They have had ample opportunity to defend their interests in due course.[41] Stripped to its basic concept, 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.[42] Petitioner-spouses were given the chance to sufficiently state their case concerning the timeliness of the notice of appeal filed by private respondents. In particular, they submitted to the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator their Comments [on]/Opposition to the Motion to Quash/Suspend Implementation of Writ of Execution and Notice of Appeal Filed by Respondents dated September 16, 1996 and Supplemental Comments [on]/Opposition to the Motion to Quash/Suspend Implementation of Writ of Execution and Notice of Appeal Filed by Respondents dated October 3, 1996 where they argued that both the motion to quash and the notice of appeal of private respondents were filed beyond the prescribed period.[43] In the DARAB level, petitioner-spouses filed a Counter- Memorandum With Motion to Dismiss Appeal dated February 9, 1997 where they again pointed out that the appeal of private respondents was filed out of time.[44] Thus, petitioner-spouses cannot correctly claim that they were not heard on the matter.
	Adm. Case No. 6475 2013-01-30	FE A. YLAYA v. ATTY. GLENN CARLOS GACOTT BRION, J.
In Alliance of Democratic Free Labor Organization v. Laguesma,[39] we held that due process, as applied to administrative proceedings, is the opportunity to explain one's side. In Samalio v. Court of Appeals,[40] due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where the opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or through pleadings, is accorded, no denial of procedural due process takes place. The requirements of due process are satisfied where the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy at hand.
	AC. No. 4808 2011-11-22	TERESITA T. BAYONLA v. ATTY. PURITA A. REYES BERSAMIN, J.
It is true that a lawyer shall not be disbarred or suspended from the practice of law until she has had full opportunity upon reasonable notice to answer the charges against her, to produce witnesses in her behalf, and to be heard by herself or counsel.[26] Contrary to Atty. Reyes' insistence, however, the IBP Board of Governors was under no legal obligation to conduct a trial-type proceeding at which she could have personally confronted Bayonla. In other words, the lack of such proceeding neither diminished her right to due process nor deprived her of the right. A formal investigation entailing notice and hearing is required in administrative proceedings for disbarment, but the imperative need of notice and hearing does not always mean the holding of an adversarial trial-type proceeding. Due process is still satisfied when the parties are afforded the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit evidence in support of their respective sides.[27] As the Court said in Samalio v. Court of Appeals:[28]
	GR No. 168008 2011-08-17	PETRONILO J. BARAYUGA v. ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES BERSAMIN, J.
The requirements of due process in an administrative context are satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the controversy,[27] for the essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard.[28] Here, the petitioner was accorded the full opportunity to be heard, as borne by the fact that he was granted the opportunity to refute the adverse findings contained in the GCAS audit report and that the Board of Trustees first heard his side during the board meetings before his removal. After having voluntarily offered his refutations in the proceedings before the Board of Trustees, he should not now be permitted to denounce the proceedings and to plead the denial of due process after the decision of the Board of Trustees was adverse to him.
	GR No. 190795 2011-07-06	NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ELECTRICITY CONSUMERS v. ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION (ERC) SERENO, J.
Although it is true that the ERC erred in prematurely issuing its Decision, its subsequent act of ordering petitioners to file their comments on Mallillin's MR cured this defect. We have held that any defect in the observance of due process requirements is cured by the filing of a MR. [27] Thus, denial of due process cannot be invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his MR. [28] Even though petitioners never filed a MR, the fact that they were still given notice of Mallillin's filing of a MR and the opportunity to file their comments thereto makes immaterial ERC's failure to admit their comment in the MAP2010 case. After all, petitioners' allegations in their unfiled comment could have still, easily and just as effectively, been raised in the MAP2010 case by incorporating the arguments in the comment to be filed in the MR case. It must be remembered that the standard of due process impressed upon administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. [29]
	GR No. 149548 2009-12-04	ROXAS v. DAMBA-NFSW CARPIO MORALES, J.
Even granting that DAMBA-NFSW should have been given notices of the applications for exemption of Roxas & Co., the lack thereof does not necessarily mean that DAMBA-NFSW was deprived of due process that would render the proceedings in DAR Administrative Cases No. A-9999-142-97 and No. A-9999-008-98 void. The Court has 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; and any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. Denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.[101] DAMBA-NFSW cannot deny that it was able to file Motions for Reconsideration of the Orders of the DAR Secretary granting the applications for exemption of Roxas & Co. in DAR Administrative Cases No. A-9999-142-97 and No. A-9999-008-98, except that both Motions were subsequently denied by the DAR Secretary for lack of merit.
	GR NO. 148600 2009-07-07	ATTY. EMMANUEL PONTEJOS v. ANIANO A DESIERTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. 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.[6]
	GR No. 175201 2008-04-23	OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO v. LEOPOLDO F. BUNGUBUNG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Before proceeding to the merits of the instant Petition, this Court deems it necessary to first address the allegation of Bungubung that he was denied due process by the Ombudsman. The fact that no formal hearing took place is not sufficient ground to say that due process was not afforded Bungubung. It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, including those before the Ombudsman, cases may be submitted for resolution on the basis of affidavits and pleadings. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimonies.[20] Undoubtedly, due process in administrative proceedings is an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of,[21] which requirement was afforded Bungubung.[22]
	GR NO. 154110 2007-11-23	FELIZARDO B. SARAPAT v. SYLVIA SALANGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Firstly, petitioners cannot maintain that they were denied due process. Well-settled is the rule 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 a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[22] Not all cases require a trial-type hearing. The requirement of due process in labor cases is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would prove their respective claims.[23] Thus, in Samalio v. Court of Appeals,[24] the Court held:Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. 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. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.[25]
	GR NO. 150157 2007-01-25	MAURICIO MANLICLIC v. MODESTO CALAUNAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
For Section 47, Rule 130[21] to apply, the following requisites must be satisfied: (a) the witness is dead or unable to testify; (b) his testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same interests; (c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action; (d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case; and (e) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the former case.[22]
	GR NO. 158960 2006-11-24	LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO v. F. WALTER R. MACABUHAY YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As regards the second issue, we find that petitioner was not deprived of due process. It is well-settled that the essence of due process in administrative proceedings is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he may have in support of his defense.[27] Deprivation of due process cannot be successfully invoked where a party was given the chance to be heard and given the opportunity to present his side.[28] In Samalio v. Court of Appeals,[29] we held:Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in courts of justice. Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. 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. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. In other words, it is not legally objectionable for being violative of due process for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties as affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.[30]
	GR NO. 167033 2006-04-12	ESTRELITA 'NENG' JULIANO v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Rehearing is defined as a "second consideration of cause for purpose of calling to court's or administrative board's attention any error, omission, or oversight in first consideration. A retrial of issues presumes notice to parties entitled thereto and opportunity for them to be heard"[13] (Emphasis supplied). But as held in Samalio v. Court Of Appeals,[14]

AUGUSTO R. SAMALIO v. CA