This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-07-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[23] Any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on such motion.[24] What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.[25] | |||||
|
2013-01-30 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Similarly, in A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc. v. Office of the President,[41] we held that "[d]ue process, as a constitutional precept, does not always, and in all situations, require a trial-type proceeding. Litigants may be heard through pleadings, written explanations, position papers, memoranda or oral arguments. The standard of due process that must be met in administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude[, provided that] fairness is not ignored. It is, therefore, not legally objectionable for being violative of due process, for an administrative agency to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties."[42] | |||||
|
2011-07-06 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Although it is true that the ERC erred in prematurely issuing its Decision, its subsequent act of ordering petitioners to file their comments on Mallillin's MR cured this defect. We have held that any defect in the observance of due process requirements is cured by the filing of a MR. [27] Thus, denial of due process cannot be invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his MR. [28] Even though petitioners never filed a MR, the fact that they were still given notice of Mallillin's filing of a MR and the opportunity to file their comments thereto makes immaterial ERC's failure to admit their comment in the MAP2010 case. After all, petitioners' allegations in their unfiled comment could have still, easily and just as effectively, been raised in the MAP2010 case by incorporating the arguments in the comment to be filed in the MR case. It must be remembered that the standard of due process impressed upon administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored. [29] | |||||
|
2011-02-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, as pointed out by the CA, the instant case does not rest on facts parallel to those of Sutton because, in Sutton, the subject property remained a livestock farm. We even highlighted therein the fact that "there has been no change of business interest in the case of respondents."[60] Similarly, in Department of Agrarian Reform v. Uy,[61] we excluded a parcel of land from CARP coverage due to the factual findings of the MARO, which were confirmed by the DAR, that the property was entirely devoted to livestock farming. However, in A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., represented by Carmen Z. Arnaiz v. Office of the President; Department of Agrarian Reform; Regional Director, DAR Region V, Legaspi City; Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR Provincial Office, Masbate, Masbate; and Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR Municipal Office, Masbate, Masbate,[62] we denied a similar petition for exemption and/or exclusion, by according respect to the CA's factual findings and its reliance on the findings of the DAR and the OP that the subject parcels of land were not directly, actually, and exclusively used for pasture.[63] | |||||
|
2011-01-10 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Verily, factual findings of administrative officials and agencies that have acquired expertise in the performance of their official duties and the exercise of their primary jurisdiction are generally accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality if such findings are supported by substantial evidence. [20] The Court generally accords great respect, if not finality, to factual findings of administrative agencies because of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under their jurisdiction. [21] | |||||