This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-11-09 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Respondent cannot argue that a hearing, investigation or any semblance thereof should have been conducted before he was terminated. In Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company,[75] this Court explained the meaning of "ample opportunity to be heard" under Article 292 of the Labor Code, as amended: A hearing means that a party should be given a chance to adduce his evidence to support his side of the case and that the evidence should be taken into account in the adjudication of the controversy. To be heard"does not mean verbal argumentation alone inasmuch as one may be heard just as effectively through written explanations, submissions or pleadings. Therefore, while the phrase "ample opportunity to be heard" may in fact include an actual hearing, it is not limited to a formal hearing only. In other words, the existence of an actual, formal "trial-type" hearing, although preferred, is not absolutely necessary to satisfy the employee's right to be heard.[76] | |||||
|
2013-07-23 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| On May 23, 2005, Walsh, Almazar, and Bernardo personally handed to Alcaraz a letter stating that her services had been terminated effective May 19, 2005.[21] The letter detailed the reasons for Alcaraz's termination particularly, that Alcaraz: (a) did not manage her time effectively; (b) failed to gain the trust of her staff and to build an effective rapport with them; (c) failed to train her staff effectively; and (d) was not able to obtain the knowledge and ability to make sound judgments on case processing and article review which were necessary for the proper performance of her duties.[22] On May 27, 2005, Alcaraz received another copy of the said termination letter via registered mail.[23] | |||||
|
2013-06-10 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence dictates that it is not enough that the employee is given an "ample opportunity to be heard" if company rules or practices require a formal hearing or conference. In such instance, the requirement of a formal hearing and conference becomes mandatory. In Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company,[56] the Court laid down the following principles in dismissing employees: (a) "ample opportunity to be heard" means any meaningful opportunity (verbal or written) given to the employee to answer the charges against him and submit evidence in support of his defense, whether in a hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way. | |||||
|
2012-07-11 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Neither can there be any denial of due process due to the absence of a hearing or investigation at the company level. It has been held in a plethora of cases that due process requirement is met when there is simply an opportunity to be heard and to explain one's side even if no hearing is conducted.[49] In the case of Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company,[50] this Court pronounced that an employee may be afforded ample opportunity to be heard by means of any method, verbal or written, whether in a hearing, conference or some other fair, just and reasonable way, in that: x x x x | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company,[20] the Court underscored the significance of the two-notice rule in dismissing an employee: To meet the requirements of due process in the dismissal of an employee, an employer must furnish the worker with two written notices: (1) a written notice specifying the grounds for termination and giving to said employee a reasonable opportunity to explain his side and (2) another written notice indicating that, upon due consideration of all circumstances, grounds have been established to justify the employer's decision to dismiss the employee. [emphases and italics ours].[21] | |||||
|
2010-07-26 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| In termination proceedings of employees, procedural due process consists of the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of employment can be effected: (1) the first apprises the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which his dismissal is sought; and (2) the second informs the employee of the employer's decision to dismiss him. The requirement of a hearing is complied with as long as there was an opportunity to be heard, and not necessarily that an actual hearing was conducted.[14] As we explained in Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company:[15] | |||||
|
2009-05-25 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Respondent was given ample opportunity[28] to explain and rebut the evidence against him. A full adversarial hearing was not required. The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard. As applied in administrative proceedings, it is merely an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[29] As held in Perez and Doria v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company and Santiago:[30] | |||||
|
2009-04-16 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We note and stress once more for everyone's guidance that the law itself only requires "ample opportunity to be heard." The essence of this requirement as an element of due process in administrative proceedings is the chance to explain one's side. Jurisprudence has amply clarified that administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in the strict judicial sense,[31] and that there is no violation of due process even if no formal or actual hearing was conducted, provided a party is given a chance to explain his side. What is frowned upon is the denial of the opportunity to be heard.[32] We have decisively settled this issue in Felix B. Perez and Amante G. Doria v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company and Jose Luis Santiago,[33] a decision penned by Mr. Justice Renato C. Corona, where we held:Article 277(b) of the Labor Code provides that, in cases of termination for a just cause, an employee must be given "ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself." Thus, the opportunity to be heard afforded by law to the employee is qualified by the word "ample" which ordinarily means "considerably more than adequate or sufficient." In this regard, the phrase "ample opportunity to be heard" can be reasonably interpreted as extensive enough to cover actual hearing or conference. To this extent, Section 2(d), Rule I of the Implementing Rules of Book VI of the Labor Code is in conformity with Article 277(b). | |||||