NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF MANILA, respondent-appellant. G.R. No.

L-19180 FACTS: 1. The National Development Company (engaged in the shipping business under the name of "Philippine National Lines") is the owner of steamship "S.S. Doa Nati" whose local agent in Manila is A. V. Rocha. 2. August 4, 1960, the Collector of Customs sent a notice to C.F. Sharp & Company (as alleged operator of the vessel) informing it that "S.S. Doa Nati" was apprehended and found to have committed a violation of the Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. 3. An RCA Victor TV set 21" was (allegedly) brought by Dr. Basilio de Leon y Mendez into the country. 4. C.F. Sharp & Company was given 48 hours to show cause why no administrative fine should be imposed upon it for said violation. C.F. Sharp & Company, not being the agent or operator of the vessel, referred the notice to A. V. Rocha 5. August 8, 1960, answered the notice stating, among other things, that the television set referred to therein was not a cargo of the vessel and, therefore, was not required by law to be manifested. Rocha stated further: "If this explanation is not sufficient, we request that this case be set for investigation and hearing in order to enable the vessel to be informed of the evidence against it to sustain the charge and to present evidence in its defense." 6. The Collector of Customs replied to Rocha (August 9, 1960) stating that he does not find his explanation satisfactory enough to exempt the vessel from liability. In said letter, the collector imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on the vessel and ordered payment thereof within 48 hours with a threat that he will deny clearance to their vessel and will issue a warrant of seizure and detention against it if the fine is not paid. 7. NDC, as owner, and operator AV Rocha filed for special civil action for certiorari before the CFI of Manila against the respondent. 8. Collector of Customs of Manila contended that petitioners have not exhausted all available administrative remedies, one of which is to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs. ISSUE: Whether or not he acted properly in imposing said fine without first giving the operator an opportunity to be heard. HELD: No. Its improper that NDC was not given a day in court. RATIONALE: The fact that the set in question was claimed by the customs authorities not to be within the exception does not automatically make the vessel liable. It is still necessary that the vessel, its owner or operator, be given a chance to show otherwise. This is precisely what petitioner Rocha has requested in his letter. Not only was he denied this chance, but respondent collector immediately imposed upon the vessel the huge fine of P5,000.00. This is a denial of the elementary rule of due process. True it is that the proceedings before the Collector of Customs insofar as the determination of any act or irregularity that may involve a violation of any customs law or regulation is concerned, or of any act arising under the Tariff and Customs Code, are not judicial in character, but merely administrative, where the rules of procedure are generally disregarded, but even in the administrative proceedings, due process should be observed because that is a right enshrined in our Constitution. The right to due process is not merely statutory. It is a constitutional right. Indeed, our Constitution provides that "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", which clause epitomize the principle of justice which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial. October 31, 1963 BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

That this principle applies with equal force to administrative proceedings was well elaborated upon by this Court in the Ang Tibay case as follows: ... The fact, however, that the Court of Industrial Relations may be said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements does not mean that it can, in justiciable case coming before it, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental and essential requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character. ... There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. (Ang Tibay, et al. v. The Court of Industrial Relations, et al., 40 O.G., No. 11, Supp. p. 29).

CONSOLACION BAUTISTA, in representation of deceased ANDRES BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS, respondents. G.R. No. L-43027 January 31, 1979 MAKASIAR, J.: FACTS: 1. Consolacion, petitioner, is the wife of the deceased Andres Bautista (died while his disability compensation claim was pending review by the respondent Comm. in his lifetime). 2. Andres was hired as a switchman by respondent Philippine National Railways since 1945. 3. August 12, 1974, Andres Bautista filed a notice of injury or sickness and claim for compensation (dated July 29, 1974) with the Department of Labor Region I at Dagupan City hall (that he is sick of PTB and Rheumatism that, the date of accident was August 10, 1973, that he stopped working on August 16, 1973, and that on August 10, 1973 he told his employer of the fact of his sickness). He attached a physician's report dated July 28, 1974 with a diagnostic finding that claimant was suffering from PTB, far advanced; prognosis is Poor, which required hospitalization 4. September 29, 1975, the hearing officer dismissed the compensation claim of claimant for the reasons of his and counsels repeated non-appearance and it appearing that the evidence adduced was not enough to warrant an immediate award in favor of the claimant 5. October 16, 1975, counsel for claimant filed a motion for reconsideration (hearings were delayed due to: a. repeated nonappearance and motions of postponement of PNR, b. withdrawal of claimants original counsel from the case, and c. their two non-appearance was because of late receipt of the notices of hearing). Counsel also informed the hearing officer of the fact that claimant is already dead. 6. November 7, 1975, the hearing officer denied the aforesaid motion, but ordered the elevation of the entire records of the case to the respondent Commission for review. 7. December 31, 1975, the respondent Commission, affirmed the order of dismissal. ISSUE: WON Andres was deprived of due process by the Commissioners hearing officer. HELD: YES. Commissions decision set aside and a new one entered (in favor of Consolacion). RATIO: Court found that, indeed, claimant and her counsel were not duly notified (August 6, 1975---not furnished a copy, August 20, 1975--- received by his representative 5 days after scheduled hearing and ANDRES ALREADY DIED, September 9, 1975---received notice 2 days after).

In the light of the foregoing facts, We rule that the respondent Commission gravely abused its discretion in ignoring and in not passing upon the issue of denial of due process squarely presented by claimant's counsel. The very rules of the Commission require the giving of reasonable notice of hearing to each party interested by service upon him personally or by registered mail of a copy thereof at his last known post office address or if he is represented by a counsel, through the latter (Sec. 2, Rule 15, Revised rules of the WCC, 1973), so as to ensure observance and protection of an interested party's right to a hearing (Sec. 1, Rule 15, Revised Rules of the WCC Patent therefore is the failure of the hearing officer to observe these rules. Under the circumstances, claimant was clearly deprived of his day in court. Consequently, the dismissal of the claim premised on claimant and his counsel's "repeated non-appearance" at the aforestated hearings cannot stand. *his PTB was a result of the nature of his work. EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION, Chairman MANUEL L. MORALES, President & Director GEORGE L. GO, Vice-Chairman & Director RICARDO J. ROMULO, Vice-Chairman & Director JOHN C.B. GO, Director HERMINIO B. BANICO, Director FRANCISCO C. CHUA, Director PETER GO PAILIAN, Director RICARDO C. LEONG, Director JULIUS T. LIMPE and Director PEDRO A. ORTIZ, petitioners, vs. HON. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, First Division, and RICARDO L. SADAC, respondents. G.R. No. 102467 FACTS: 1. Private respondent Atty. Sadac was appointed as Vice-President for the Legal Department of petitioner bank by its then President, Manuel L. Morales. 2. On 26 June 1989, nine lawyers of the bank's Legal Department (all under Atty. Sadacs supervision) addressed a "letterpetition" to the Chairman of the Board of Directors, accusing Atty. Sadac of abusive conduct, inefficiency, mismanagement, ineffectiveness and indecisiveness (Atty. Sadac was furnished with a copy of the letter.). 3. Petitioner Morales, by now Chairman of the Board of Directors, called the contending lawyers to a conference in his office in an attempt to resolve their differences. 4. The meeting held on 29 June 1989, in the presence of Vice-President for Personnel and Human Relations Dean Alejandro C. Reyes, apparently did not amount to much (resulted in a broad commitment of the parties to implement the "existing procedures and practices in the Legal Department" and was marked by "rancorous and very heated altercation" between private respondent and his subordinates). 5. Petitioner Banico met with the complaining nine lawyers on 17 July 1989. He was warned that if Atty. Sadac were to be retained in his position, the lawyers would resign en masse. 6. Convinced that reconciliation was out of the question, Mr. Banico, on 08 August 1989, submitted a report to the Board of Directors finding Atty. Sadac guilty of abusive conduct, mismanagement, and inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and indecisiveness. 7. 10 August 1989, Mr. Morales issued a memorandum to Atty. Sadac saying that they have chosen the more compassionate option of waiting for your voluntary resignation from your employ with the Bank, and that he has been substituted by Atty. Veto in his position already. 8. Atty. Sadac, on 14 August 1989 addressed a letter to Board Chairman Morales, furnishing the other members of the Board a copy, saying that the memorandum of Mr. Morales results in an illegal dismissal. 9. 17 August 1989, petitioner Ricardo J. Romulo, Board Vice-Chairman, answered Atty. Sadac, saying that private respondent's services were not terminated by the Board (was merely exercising its managerial prerogative "to control, conduct (its) business in the manner (it) deems fit and to regulate the same). June 13, 1997 VITUG, J.:

10. In his memorandum of 28 August 1989 to the members of the Board, Atty. Sadac again made a request for a full hearing and cautioned that, under Section 31 of the Corporation Code, individual members of the Board could be held accountable for voting or assenting to patently unlawful acts of the corporation. 11. On 31 August 1989, Mr. Romulo wrote back stating that the bank's confidence on private respondent had been lost "most especially in the light of (his) threats" and that the latter could "bring the matter up in the appropriate forum." (Atty. Sadac, on 07 September 1989, asked again for an investigation but was unheeded) 12. Atty. Sadac, on 09 November 1989, filed with the Manila arbitration branch of the NLRC, a complaint, docketed NLRC Case No. 00-11-05252-89, against herein petitioners for illegal dismissal and damages. Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Equitable Banking Corp. NLRC ON APPEAL reversed LA. *they view their relationship with Atty. Sadac with lawyer-client relationship, not in an employer-employee relationship (that a lawyer can be terminated anytime by the client). ISSUE: WON Atty. Sadac was deprived of due process by Equitable Banking Corp. HELD: YES. Their outright dismissal of his request for hearing him resulted to deprivation of due process, and their steps in reconciliation was not proper. RATIO: On Appeal

The NLRC ruled that private respondent was denied the right to due process with the bank's failure to observe the twin requirements of notice and hearing. The 10th August 1989 memorandum could not have been a substitute for notice because it did not manifest petitioners' intention to dismiss him from employment, and neither the meeting between private respondent and the complaining lawyers nor those held between private respondent and petitioner Banico could be considered the "investigations" which private respondent had consistently sought. Supreme Court

While it is true that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied in administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, meetings in the nature of consultation and conferences such as the case here, however, may not be valid substitutes for the proper observance of notice and hearing.