This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-08-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Prefatorily, we reiterate the well-settled rule that, when supported by substantial evidence and absent any clear showing of abuse, arbitrariness or capriciousness, findings of fact of administrative agencies, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon this Court.[15] After study of the evidence on record, we find no reason to depart from this rule. | |||||
|
2006-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Further, we find that the COMELEC First Division correctly annulled the proclamation of the petitioner. Time and again, this Court has given its imprimatur on the principle that COMELEC is with authority to annul any canvass and proclamation which was illegally made.[16] At the time the proclamation was made, the COMELEC First Division had not yet resolved SPC No. 04-087. Pursuant to Section 36(i) of COMELEC Resolution No. 6669, which finds basis in Section 20(i) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7166,[17] the MBC should not have proclaimed petitioner as the winning candidate absent the authorization from the COMELEC. Any proclamation made under such circumstances is void ab initio.[18] | |||||
|
2005-03-28 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The instant case filed by Catolico is an administrative case for grave misconduct against petitioner for the alleged robbery-holdup and mauling incident that took place on 22 December 1990. In resolving administrative cases, conduct of full-blown trial is not indispensable to dispense justice to the parties. The requirement of notice and hearing does not connote full adversarial proceedings.[49] Submission of position papers may be sufficient for as long as the parties thereto are given the opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[50] This constitutional mandate is deemed satisfied if a person is granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of an action or a ruling.[51] It does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the 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.[52] | |||||