Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIDEL AMARILLO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR NO. 154110 2007-11-23	FELIZARDO B. SARAPAT v. SYLVIA SALANGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In the present case, since the inception of the case before the DOLE-NCR, petitioners were given every opportunity to present their side and submit the union books of accounts and other needed documents to justify the litigation expenses incurred in the prosecution of the labor cases upon which the 5% special assessment fee was based. They failed to do so, even when they requested time, on several occasions, to submit the necessary documents. Besides, when petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration assailing the act of the BLR in ruling on the propriety of the litigation expenses, such action satisfied the requirement of due process. As the Court has consistently held, where the parties were given the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, they cannot claim denial of due process of law.[26]
	GR NO. 172274 2006-11-16	ROMEO D. CABARLO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly denied petitioner's motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. Under the Rules of Court, the requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.[13]
	GR NO. 147932 2006-01-25	LAILA G. DE OCAMPO v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE 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.
	GR NO. 161608 2005-08-09	LEONCIO A. AMADORE v. ALBERTO G. ROMULO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The requisites for newly discovered evidence are: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial with reasonable diligence; and (c) that it is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, will probably change the judgment.[38]