This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-12-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Thus, "[a] party cannot successfully invoke deprivation of due process if he was accorded the opportunity of a hearing, through either oral arguments or pleadings. There is no denial of due process when a party is given an opportunity through his pleadings."[57] In the present case, the petitioners cannot claim deprivation of due process because they actively participated in the Comelec proceedings that sought for payment of their retirement benefits under R.A. No. 1568. The records clearly show that the issuance of the assailed Comelec resolution was precipitated by the petitioners' application for retirement benefits with the Comelec. Significantly, the petitioners were given ample opportunity to present and explain their respective positions when they sought a re-computation of the initial pro-rated retirement benefits that were granted to them by the Comelec. Under these facts, no violation of the right to due process of law took place. | |||||
|
2006-01-25 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner was not deprived of due process since both parties were accorded equal rights in arguing their case and presenting their respective evidence during the preliminary investigation. Due process is merely an opportunity to be heard.[17] Petitioner cannot successfully invoke denial of due process since she was given the opportunity of a hearing.[18] She even submitted her counter-affidavit to the investigating prosecutor on 18 January 2000. | |||||