This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is settled that, in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. Administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[21] In a recent case, a party likewise protested against the non-presentation of a witness during trial and the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. Addressing the issue, the Court held that the contention was unavailing, stating that - | |||||
|
2006-11-30 |
|||||
| Respondent's objection will be sustained in civil or criminal litigation, but not in an administrative proceeding as in the instant case. In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.[42] | |||||
|
2006-11-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The essence of due process is an opportunity to be heard. One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more creditably and practicable than oral argument, through pleadings. In administrative proceedings, moreover, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied; administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.[20] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) | |||||
|
2004-08-31 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The essence of due process is that a party be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present any evidence he may have in support of his defense or simply an opportunity to be heard;[11] or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action of ruling complained of.[12] One may be heard, not solely by verbal presentation but also, and perhaps even many times more creditably than oral argument, through pleadings. Technical rules of procedure and evidence are not even strictly applied to administrative proceedings, and administrative due process cannot be fully equated to due process in its strict judicial sense.[13] | |||||
|
2004-01-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's argument deserves scant consideration. Dismissal of the criminal case does not foreclose administrative action involving the same facts. For while proof beyond reasonable doubt is required in criminal cases, substantial evidence suffices in administrative proceedings, which merely requires such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[28] Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.[29] | |||||