Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ASIAN TERMINALS v. NEPTHALLY B. SALLAO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 178837 2014-09-01	COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v. ISIDRA DELA ROSA-MERIS PERALTA, J.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that respondent refused to present her side by choice. It can be said that ample opportunity was afforded to respondent to defend herself from the charges levelled on her, but she opted not to take it. In a plethora of cases, we have ruled that the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard; and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held,[89] especially when the employee herself precluded the same from happening, as in this case.
	GR No. 190436 2012-01-16	NORMAN YABUT v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY REYES, J.
On the matter of procedural due process, it is well-settled that notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected. The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which dismissal is sought. The second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. With regard to the requirement of a hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.[27]
	GR No. 151349 2010-10-20	LEANDRO M. ALCANTARA v. PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On the issue of due process, it is settled that notice and hearing constitute the essential elements of due process in the dismissal of employees. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before termination of employment can be legally effected. The first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought. The second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. With regard to the requirement of a hearing, the essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably be held.[30]
	GR No. 186289 2010-06-29	ORIENTAL SHIPMANAGEMENT CO. v. ROMY B. BASTOL VELASCO JR., J.
And neither can OSCI rely on lack of due process. The essence of due process lies simply in an opportunity to be heard, and not that an actual hearing should always and indispensably he held.[68] Considering that OSCI indeed contested the late submission of Bastol by filing its most vehement objection thereto on November 27, 2001, it cannot complain of not being accorded the opportunity to be heard and much less can it demand for the setting of an actual hearing. What OSCI could have and ought to have done was to present its own counter-affidavits. But it did not.
	GR No. 168876 2009-02-10	PHILIPPINE PASAY CHUNG HUA ACADEMY v. SERVANDO L. EDPAN QUISUMBING, J.
Thus, we rule that PPCHA observed procedural due process before Edpan was dismissed. Even if no hearing or conference was conducted, the requirement of due process had been met since he was accorded a chance to explain his side of the controversy.[30]