Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

INOCELIA S. AUTENCIO v. CITY ADMINISTRATOR

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 187854 2013-11-12	RAY PETER O. VIVO v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT BERSAMIN, J.
In any event, any procedural defect in the proceedings taken against the petitioner was cured by his filing of the motion for reconsideration and by his appealing the adverse result to the CSC. The Court held in Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission[27] that any defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who was afforded the opportunity to be heard. In Autencio v. Mañara,[28] the Court observed that defects in procedural due process may be cured when the party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
	GR No. 194368 2013-04-02	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA BRION, J.
We support the CA's conclusion that SJO2 Almojuela was accorded the right to due process during the BJMP investigation. The essence of due process in administrative proceedings (such as the BJMP investigation) is simply the opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[63] Where a party has been given the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.[64]
	GR No. 194368 2013-04-02	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA BRION, J.
Finally, we do not agree with SJO2 Almojuela's assertion that the statements of SJO2 Aquino, JO1 Loyola, SJO1 Lagahit and JO1 Robles in their affidavits should be disregarded for being hearsay as he failed to cross-examine them. It is well-settled that a formal or trial-type of hearing is not indespensible in administrative proceedings, and a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.[74] Technical rules applicable to judicial proceedings need not always apply.[75] In Erece v. Macalingay et. al.,[76] we affirmed the CA's ruling finding the petitioner guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service despite his contention that he had been denied his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him. We held that the right to cross-examine the other party's witnesses is not an indispensable aspect of due process in administrative proceedings. Due process in these proceedings is not identical with "judicial process;" a trial in court is not always essential in administrative due process.[77] Moreover, we have consistently held that in reviewing administrative decisions, the findings of fact made must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[78] We find no reason in this case to depart from these principles.
	GR No. 194368 2013-04-02	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ARLIC ALMOJUELA BRION, J.
Finally, we do not agree with SJO2 Almojuela's assertion that the statements of SJO2 Aquino, JO1 Loyola, SJO1 Lagahit and JO1 Robles in their affidavits should be disregarded for being hearsay as he failed to cross-examine them. It is well-settled that a formal or trial-type of hearing is not indespensible in administrative proceedings, and a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process.[74] Technical rules applicable to judicial proceedings need not always apply.[75] In Erece v. Macalingay et. al.,[76] we affirmed the CA's ruling finding the petitioner guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service despite his contention that he had been denied his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him. We held that the right to cross-examine the other party's witnesses is not an indispensable aspect of due process in administrative proceedings. Due process in these proceedings is not identical with "judicial process;" a trial in court is not always essential in administrative due process.[77] Moreover, we have consistently held that in reviewing administrative decisions, the findings of fact made must be respected as long as they are supported by substantial evidence.[78] We find no reason in this case to depart from these principles.
	GR No. 168668 2009-12-16	PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. PEARL CITY MANUFACTURING COROPORATION PERALTA, J.
In any event, the Court agrees with petitioners that any procedural defect in the proceedings before the PEZA Board was cured when the PCMC appealed PEZA Board Resolution No. 04-236 before the OP. Petitioners were also able to move for the reconsideration of the adverse ruling of the OP. In Autencio v. Mañara,[22] the Court ruled that where the party has the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured. Likewise, in Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission,[23] the Court ruled that any seeming defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard thereon.