This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-06-08 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| In Solid Homes, Inc. v. Laserna,[19] this Court ruled that the rights of parties in an administrative proceedings are not violated by the brevity of the decision rendered by the OP incorporating the findings and conclusions of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB), for as long as the constitutional requirement of due process has been satisfied. Thus: It must be stated that Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution need not apply to decisions rendered in administrative proceedings, as in the case a[t] bar. Said section applies only to decisions rendered in judicial proceedings. In fact, Article VIII is titled "Judiciary," and all of its provisions have particular concern only with respect to the judicial branch of government. Certainly, it would be error to hold or even imply that decisions of executive departments or administrative agencies are oblige[d] to meet the requirements under Section 14, Article VIII. | |||||
|
2010-10-06 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioner asserts that the requirement in Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution applies only to decisions of "courts of justice"[12]; that, citing Solid Homes, Inc. v. Laserna,[13] the constitutional provision does not extend to decisions or rulings of executive departments such as the DOJ; and that Section 12(c) of the NPS Rule on Appeal allows the DOJ to dismiss a petition for review motu proprio, and the use of the word "outright" in the DOJ Resolution simply means "altogether," "entirely" or "openly."[14] | |||||