This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-08-25 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We stress again that the fundamental and essential right of due process cannot be dispensed with.[17] Notice to enable the other party to be heard and to present evidence is not a mere technicality or a trivial matter in any administrative proceedings but an indispensable ingredient of due process.[18] Thus, in Marino v. Salud,[19] we held that the right "to a full and fair hearing should not be compromised." We quoted our ruling in Abalos v. Civil Service Commission[20] - | |||||
|
2000-08-01 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| full retroaction of the arbitral award to the date of expiry of the CBA, and the inevitable effect that it would have on the national economy. On the other hand, under the policy of social justice, the law bends over backward to accommodate the interests of the working class on the humane justification that those with less privilege in life should have more in law.[15] Balancing these two contrasting interests, this Court turned to the dictates of fairness and equitable justice and thus arrived at a formula that would address the concerns of both sides. Hence, this Court held that the arbitral award in this case be made to retroact to the first day after the six-month period following the expiration of the last day of the CBA, i.e., from June 1, 1996 to May 31, 1998. This Court, therefore, maintains the foregoing rule in the assailed Resolution pro hac vice. It must be clarified, however, that consonant with this rule, the two-year effectivity period must start from June 1, 1996 up to May 31, 1998, not December 1, 1995 to | |||||