This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-07-16 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| This is not only unfair to the respondents who were deprived of the opportunity to propound their arguments on the issue. It is likewise not allowed by the rules. In the June 23, 2008 Resolution,[49] the Court reminded the parties that "[n]o new issues may be raised by a party in the memorandum."[50] The rationale for this was explained by the Court in Heirs of Cesar Marasigan v. Marasigan,[51] thus: This Court significantly notes that the first three issues, alleging lack of jurisdiction and cause of action, are raised by petitioners for the first time in their Memorandum. No amount of interpretation or argumentation can place them within the scope of the assignment of errors they raised in their Petition. | |||||
|
2010-11-22 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The emerging trend of jurisprudence is more inclined to the liberal and flexible application of the Rules of Court. However, we have not been remiss in reminding the bench and the bar that zealous compliance with the rules is still the general course of action. Rules of procedure are in place to ensure the orderly, just, and speedy dispensation of cases;[21] to this end, inflexibility or liberality must be weighed. The relaxation or suspension of procedural rules or the exemption of a case from their operation is warranted only by compelling reasons or when the purpose of justice requires it.[22] | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As to the second issue, petitioner anchors his opposition to the petition filed by PVB on the contention that the titles, which he presented to the bank as evidence that the subject properties were used as security for the loan he and his wife incurred with the said bank, were genuine but were later on altered by the bank's officials and employees with whom he allegedly entered a deal in order to have his loan approved. Petitioner claims that this altered and spurious titles were the ones presented by PVB in its first petition filed with the RTC in June 1986. However, these allegations remain unsubstantiated. They are self-serving statements which are not supported by any evidence whatsoever. It is settled that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.[6] The established fact remains that petitioner and his wife were the ones who submitted to PVB the authentic owner's copy of the titles over the subject properties and that these copies were lost. | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Due process is not a mantra, the mere invocation of which shall warrant a reversal of a decision. Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard,[39] or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. Our ruling in Filipino v. Macabuhay[40] is instructive: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. Petitioner was not deprived of due process in this case as he had in fact filed his Answer and a Joint Position Paper explaining to the Board the reasons for the discrepancy of the inspection and delivery date as contained in the IRR and of the actual delivery dates. He was, likewise, able to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the NPC President's decision. It bears stressing that petitioner, along with his other co-respondents, was given an opportunity during the Pre-Conference Hearing to manifest whether he would like to avail the services of counsel but he opted to remain quiet. It should also be emphasized that despite the opportunity to do so, petitioner did not present any new substantial defense other than to say that the alleged typographical error on the date of IRR was not his own doing and that his signing the IRR - error and all - was simply a case of oversight. | |||||