Due process in academic and disciplinary proceedings: Cudia v.

PMA
Superintendent, G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015: right to counsel is not
mandatory in administrative proceedings.
Instances when no notice and hearing are required: Arroyo v. Rosa! Homeowners
Association, Inc., G.R. No. 175155, Oct. 22, 2012: active participation in
administrative proceedings prior to an adverse decision will negate a claim of lack of
due process; requirements for membership in an organization must be observed
Vivas, on his behalf and on behalf of the shareholders of EUROCREDIT
Community Bank v. The Monetary Board of the BSP and PDIC, G.R. No. 191424,
August 7, 2013: notice is not required where there is a greater public interest to
protect.
Effect when due process is not observed: Winston F. Garcia v. Molina and
Velasco, G.R. No. 157383, August 10, 2010: where parties were not given the
opportunity to oppose the grounds of their suspension, the same must be declared
void.
Jardeleza v. Chief Justice Sereno and the JBC, G.R. No. 213181, August 19,
2014: due process requires the opportunity for a person to disprove the objection of
his lack of integrity to qualify as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
B. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
I. Due Process and Property Rights
Due Process and Property Rights: Heirs of Dr. Jose Deleste v. Land Bank of the
Philippines, et aL, G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011: there is ample jurisprudence
holding that the subsequent and substantial compliance of an appellant may call for
the relaxation of the rules of procedure. Law and jurisprudence grant to courts the
prerogative to relax compliance with the procedural rules, even the most mandatory
in character, mindful of the duty to reconcile the need to put an end to litigation
speedily and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard; actual notice is
required.
2. Due Process and Police Power: Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
Association Inc. v. City of Manila, 20 SCRA 849(1967): valid exercise of police
power as an integral component of due process.
Whitelight Corp. v. City of Manila, 576 SCRA 416(2009): the right to property and
the right to privacy cannot be impaired through an ordinance which falls within the
ambit of the overbreadth doctrine.
3. Due Process and Eminent Domain (Section 9, Article III and Article 18. Article
XII)
Requirements for exercise of right of expropriation: taking for public purpose and just
compensation
Procedural Requirement: City of Manila v. Melba Tan Te, G.R. No. 169263,
September 21, 2011: answer required in eminent domain proceedings; government
has effectively waived its right to prove the nature of the taking for failure to comply
with substantive requirements of the law; there two stages in expropriation
proceedings: (1) court must determine authority of the petitioner and nature of the
public purpose; and (2) the court must determine just compensation.
4. Due Process and Non-Economic Liberties: Right to Privacy
Concept of the Right (Section 3, Article III, Constitution)
Spouses Hing v. Chaoahuy, Sr. and Alllan Choachuy, G.R. No. 179736, June 26,
2013: under a civil case, a party may seek relief from the court for violation of one's
right to privacy in his abode.