Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
HELD: The petitioners by failing to file the appeal on time effectively forfeited their
right to appeal hence they cannot claim that they were denied of due process. Rules of
procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and protection
of substantive rights in judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. The policy of the courts
is to give effect to both procedural and substantive rights and such is equally granted
by due process. It is important to take note that the counsel of the petitioner is a
seasoned lawyer hence the argument that the latter is inept is unacceptable.
4. EL BANCO ESPANOL FILIPINO v. PALANCA come into his hand and notice sent by mail is not a guarantee that the defendant will
G.R. No. l-11390 March 26, 1918 receive it. Property is always assumed to be in the possession of its owner and he
Petitioner: El Banco Espanol Filipino may be safely held to be affected with knowledge that proceedings have been
Respondents: Vicente Palanca instituted for its condemnation and sale. Also the lapse of time is considered in
Ponente: Street, J. deciding this case. There is also a presumption of regularity in absence of a
convincing evidence that the official failed to perform the required action.
Key take-away: Due process in judicial proceeding can be obtained in the
presence of the following conditions: DISSENT- MALCOLM, J.
1. Court clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it The fundamental idea of due process of law os that no man shall be condemned in
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or his person or property without notice and an opportunity to be heard in his defense.
over th property which is the subject of the proceeding
3. Defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
FACTS:
The property of defendant Enrico Limquingco was used by him as a security for his
payment to the bank. Such property was mortgage in 1906 at 292, 558 pesos which
was about 75,000 of the indebtedness (218, 294.10). Upon the completion of
mortgage, the defendant went back to China and died on 1910 without returning to
the Philippines. 7 years later, a motion was filed by Vincent Palanca seeking to
vacate all the proceedings on the basis that judgment rendered thereon were void for
the court has never acquired jurisdiction.
ISSUE/S:
HELD:
1. Yes, the court has JURISDICTION.
1. Acquired from the power which it possesses over the property
2. Jurisdiction over the person is not acquired and non-essential
3. Relief granted by court must be limited to such as can be enforced against
the property itself.
2. DUE PROCESS
Right to be heard
The failure of the clerk to send the notice by mail did not destroy the
jurisdiction of the court and such irregularity did not infringe the requirement
of due process of law.
In mortgage cases actual notice to the defendant in cases of this kind if not
considered necessary. The periodical containing such mode of notification may not
5. ANG TIBAY v. CIR court. Further, the attached documents and exhibits are of such far-reaching
G.R. No. L-46496 February 27, 1940 importance. The motion for new trial is granted.
Petitioner: Ang Tibay represented by Toribo Teodoro and National Workers
Brotherhood 6. SHU v. DEE
Respondents: Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. 182573. April 23, 2014
Ponente: Laurel, J. Petitioner: Ray Shu
Respondents: Enriqueto Magpantay, ramon Miranda, Larry Macillan and Edwin So.
Key take-away Ponente: Brion, J.
FACTS: Key take-away: Sufficient compliance with the requirements of due process exists
The respondents through the Solicitor General filed the present motion for when a party is given a chance to be heard through his motion for reconsideration.
reconsideration assailing the decision of this court averring among others that Toribio
Teodoro’s claim that there was shortage of leather soles was a mere excuse to lay-off FACTS: Petitioner filed the Rule 45 petition for certiorari which seeks to reverse the
members of the National Labor Union, prevent the forfeiture of the bond despite the decision of the CA dated June 19, 2007 and its resolution dated April 4, 2008 which
breach of contract, that the National Worker’s Brotherhood is illegal and that the annulled the resolution of the Secretary of Justice finding probable cause for
exercise by the laborers of their right to collective bargaining are highly essential and falsification against the respondents. He alleged that the signatures were fraudulently
indispensable. obtained and upon investigation, the NBI submitted questioned documents report
which affirmed that the signature of the petitioner on the assailed documents were not
In solving the case at bar, the court clarified the nature and fucntions of the Court of the same as the standard sample signatures he submitted to the NBI. Respondents on
Industrial Relations which includes the following: the other hand claim that they were denied of due process for they were never asked
to submit the standard sample signatures of petitioner for comparison.
The Court of Industrial Relations (Commonwealth Act No 103)
It is more administrative than part of the integrated judicial system of the Ruling of the City Prosecutor
nation The City prosecutor found no probable cause against the respondents and dismissed
It has the jurisdiction over the entire Philippines, to consider, investigate, the complaint for lack of merit. The pieces of evidence presented before the city
decide and settle any question/mater or controversy arising between and or prosecutor, which were not made available to the NBI and which the petitioner does
affecting employers and employees of laborers and regulate the relations not dispute prove that the same person executed the questioned deeds.
between them.
It is also not bound by technical rules of procedure and is bound to act Ruling of the Secretary of Justice
according to justice and equity and substantive merits of the case without The Secretary reversed the order citing that the City Prosecutor failed to consider the
regard to technicalities or legal forms. It is also not bound to the specific evidentiary findings of the NBI experts.
reqard claimed or demands made by the parties.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Despite this, there are primary rights which must be respected and observed in The CA reversed the finding of the Secretary of Justice and held that respondents were
administrative trials and investigation. These includes right to hearing, right to present denied of their right to due process. It held that the respondents were not furnished a
the case and adduce substantive evidence and that the decision must be rendered on report of the complaint and was not required to file their answer/corresponding
the evidence presented on the hearing or atleast disclosed to the parties affected and evidences.
that the Court if Industrial Relations should render the decision and state the basis of
such,, ARGUMENTS
The petitioners’ arguments
The petitioner claims that there was no denial of due process as shown by the
ISSUE: W/N due process of law was violated and a new trial may be granted. active participation of the respondents and their corresponding act of filing of motion
for reconsideration hence the CA erred in dismissing the case.
HELD: The petitioner stated under oath that the exhibits attached to the petition is
inaccessible to them at the time of trial and they cannot be offered as evidence to the Respondents’ arguments:
They were denied of due process and for they were prevented from 7. GMA v. COMELEC
participating in the NBI and DOJ proceedings. G.R. No. 205357. September 2, 2014.
Petitioner: GMA Network; Alan Peter Cayetano; ABS-CBN; Manila Broadcasting
ISSUE: W/N respondents were denied of due process Company; Newsounds Broadcasting Network; Radio Mindanao Network, Kapisanan
ng mga Broadkaster ng Pilipinas
HELD: Respondents were not denied of due process. Respondents: COMELEC
The Court averred that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. Ponente: Peralta, J.
Sufficient compliance is obtained when a party is given the chance to be heard through
the motion for reconsideration. It is undisputed that the respondents filed with the CASE SUMMARY:
Secretary of Justice a motion for reconsideration hence any defects were cured by said Petitioners assail the constitutionality of Sec 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution 9615
act. Furthermore, the NBI has no judicial or quasi-judicial power to try and hear cases. which limits the broadcast and radio advertisement of candidates and political parties
It is merely informational and investigatory. It cannot determine probable cause and for national election positions to an aggregate total of 120 minutes and 180 minutes
its findings are merely recommendatory. The Court also took cognizance of the fact for violating freedom of the press, impairs the people’s right to suffrage and right to
that the specimen signatures of Metrobank was submitted to the City Prosecutor and information relative to the right to vote.
Secretary of Justice. With regards to the questioned documents report, it is
inconclusive and does not directly point to the involvement of the respondents in the FACTS OF THE CASE
crime charged. FAIR ELECTION ACT (RA 9006).
All bonafide candidates or registered political parties shall be entitled to not more than
The Secretary did not commit grave abuse of discretion. 120 minutes of television advertisement and 180 minutes of radio advertisements for
Probable cause exists when the elements of crime charged is present. It pertains to national positions and 60 minutes TV and 90 minutes radio for local elective positions.
pertains to facts and circumstances sufficient to support a well-founded belief that a For the May 14 2007 and May 10 2010, the COMELEC implemented such act on the
crime has been committed and the accused is probably guilty thereof. The elements of basis of per station while for the May 2013, they changed it to a total aggegate basis.
falsification are as follows: Petitioners also assail the subsequent resolution of the COMELEC which imposes
(1) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did criminal liability and a possible suspension/revocation of franchise/permit to any
not take advantage of his official position; company who will sell excess air-time. Furthermore, petitioner GMA also contends
(2) he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the that the Resolution was promulgated without public consultations hence violative of
RPC; the petitioners’ right to due process definition of the terms “political advertisement”
(3) the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial document and “election propaganda” suffers from overbreadth, thereby producing a “chilling
Contrary to the allegation that the Secretary of Justice merely gave credence to the effect,” constituting prior restraint.
questioned documents report and petitioner’s self serving allegations, the SOJ
examined and took into consideration all the pieces of evidence submitted to him/her RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS
by the parties. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are not available to petitioners for
it is only available against the COMELEC’s exercise of judicial, quasi-
Claim of the city prosecutor judicial and do not lie against their administrative/rule-making power.
The arguments and the manner in which the city prosecutor negated the questioned Petitioners have no locus standi for the constitutional rights and freedom are
documents report are contrary to the well-settled rule that the validity and merits of a not personal to them and belongs to the Filipino electorate in general. Also,
party’s defense and accusation, as well as admissibility of testimonies and evidence, fear of injury is highly speculative and contingent on a future action hence
are better ventilated during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level. does not confer locus standi.
The total aggregate limitation is in keeping of the constitutional objective to
give equal media access during elections and is also made in pursuant of Sec.
4, Article IX-C which vested the COMELEC the power to regulate during
election periods transportation and other utilities as well as mass media.
The notice of appearance to the COMELEC is only for monitoring and not
for censorship purposes and the public consultation requirement does not
apply to COMELEC pursuant to Sec. 1, Chap. 1, Book VII of Aministrative
Code.
GMA’s CONTENTIONS possible broadcast in all TV/radio stations. By unduly providing for rules beyond what
Petition for certiorari is the correct remedy for the case at bar involves was contemplated by the law it was supposed to implement, the COMELEC
national interest and sense of urgency. committed GAD.
It has locus standi for it personally suffered a threatened injury in the form of
risk of criminal liability and such is traceable to the challenged action of the Section 9 (a) of COMELEC Resolution on airtime limits also goes against the
COMELEC. constitutional guaranty of freedom of expression, of speech and of press.
The Fair Election Act speaks of equal opportunity and equal access not The guarantee of freedom to speak is useless without the ability to
equalizing the economic station of the rich and the poor. communicate and disseminate what is said.
The assailed issuances and action imposes an unconstitutional burden on Political speech is one of the most important expressions protected by the
them to strictly monitor the duration of total airtime. Fundamental Law. The same must remain unfettered unless otherwise
Pursuant to Sec 82 of Omnibus Election Code, a public consultation must be justified by a compelling state interest.
instituted and in the absence of such, COMELEC is violating their right to In the case at bar, the airtime limitation imposed by the COMELEC would
due process. translate to a 81.81 seconds per day TV exposure allotment or 27.27 seconds
of airtime per network per day. (120 minutes | 88 days of campaign period).
ISSUES: The aggregated based airtime limits unduly restricts the ability of candidate
1. W/N petitioners have locus standi? to reach out and communicate with people.
2. W/N the assailed resolutions violate the constitutionally protected rights of the
broadcast companies and of the general voters? There is a need for public consultation
When, upon the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely
HELD: providing for the means that can facilitate or render least cumbersome the
Locus Standi implementation of the law but substantially adds to or increases the burden
Yes, the petitioners have locus standi. Petitioner-intervenor Alan Peter Cayetano is a of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord at least to those directly
candidate that is directly affected by the assailed issuances. The same can be said for affected a chance to be heard, and thereafter to be duly informed, before that
the broadcast companies for the direct injury they may suffer relative to their ability new issuance is given the force and effect of law.
to carry out their tasks if disseminating information because of the burdens imposed
on them. Also, standing admits of several exceptions such as overbreadth and third Section 9 (a) does not impose unconstitutional burden due to monitoring
party standing in which the former pertains to the right of challengers to government It is the COMELEC who shall monitor. Broadcast companies are merely
actions to raise the tights of third parties especially if a statute needlessly restrains even required to submit certain documents to aid the COMELEC in ensuring that
constitutionally guaranteed rights. candidates does not exceed to the allowable limits.
Also the right to reply is not violative of any constitutional freedom.
2. The assailed resolutions and actions violate constitutionally protected rights.
RESPONDENTS’ POSITION:
Right to bail is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and extends to a
prospective extradite. Section 13, Article 3 of the Constitution provides that
the right to bail shall not be impaired save in cases in which the penalty
provided for is reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE: W/N the respondent court committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting
private respondent to bail when there is nothing in the Constitution or statutes which
grants a potential extradite a right to bail.
9. RCBC v. BDO Upon the commencement of hearings, the Arbitrational Tribunal decided that
G.R. No. 196171. December 10, 2012. it will confine itself to issues of liability and rendered a partial award which state
Petitioner: RCBC Capital Corporation among others that the Claimant (RCBC) is entitled to damages for the foregoing
Respondents: Banco de Oro breaches and that all other issues will be dealt in a final award. RCBC then paid the
Ponente: Villarama, J. total amount of advance on costs reiterating its plea that respondents be declared in
default and that its counterclaims be considered withdrawn. The Tribunal though
Case Summary: The case at bar is two consolidated cases filed by the respective Chairman Barker in its reply reiterated that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to declare
parties pursuant to the arbitration clause in the contract. In the RCBC case, petitioner that respondents have no right to participate. A second award was rendered ordering
seeks to reverse the CA order while in the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed EPCIB to reimburse RCBC which prompted the former to file a motion to vacate.
by BDO assails the CA resolution which denied BDO’s application for issuance of
stay-order/TRO. RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS (EPCIB/BDO)
The award is void ab initio having been rendered by arbitrators who
FACTS: exceeded their power
The petitioner entered into a Share Purchase Agreement with Equitable PCI The award was procured by undue means or issued with evident partiality
Bank for the sale to RCBC of 226,460,00 shares which constitute 67% of the latter’s for there is no express/implied agreement either in SPA or ICC rules for right
capital stock. Sometime in May, RCBC claimed that there has been a overstatement to reimbursement.
of valuation of accounts amounting to an overpayment and that in return, the seelers The ruling that respondents’ application for litigation, moral and exemplary
violated their warranty pursuant to Sec. 5 (g) of the SPA. Absence of a settlement, damages are not counterclaims is contrary to Philippine law as it is basic in
RCBC then commenced arbitration proceedings with ICC-ICA in accordance with Sec our jurisdiction that counterclaims for litigation expenses are proper
10 of the SPA which provided that the venue of arbitration proceedings shall be in counterclaims.
Makati, that substantive aspects of the dispute shall be settled using the laws of the
Philippines and that the decision of the arbiter is final and binding to the parties. After a further exchange of pleadings and other motions, the Makati City RTC Branch
In its request for arbitration (Neil Kaplan, Santiago Kapunan and Sir Ian 138 issued the order which confirmed the Second Partial Award.
Baker), RCBC prayed for rescission, as well as payment of
actual damages in the amount of P573,132,110, legal interest on the purchase price THE CA RULING
until actual restitution, moral damages and litigation and attorney’s fees, with Reversed and set aside the order of RTC Makati Branch 148 which denied
alternative prayer for award of damages in the amount of at least P809,796,082 plus the motion to vacate and confirmed the second partial award. RCBC then
legal interest. filed for a motion for reconsideration which was likewise denied by CA.
ISSUE/S:
(1) W/N a school has the right to expel students based on its disciplinary rules
and moral standards
(2) W/N the penalty imposed is proper under the given circumstances
HELD:
Yes, the school has the right to expel the students for violating Rule 3 and the
penalty imposed was proper given the circumstances, hence the respondent judge
acted in grave abuse when he ruled that the students were denied of due process.
As dictated by Guzman v. NU, the minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition
of disciplinary actions are the following:
(1) They must be informed in writhing of the nature and cause of accusation
against them
(2) Right to answer the charges with the assistance of a counsel
(3) Informed of the evidence against them 11. GO v. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN LETRAN
(4) Right to adduce evidence on their own behalf G.R. No. 169391. October 10, 2012
(5) Evidence must be duly considered by investigating committee. Petitioner: Eugene and Angelita Go
Respondents: Colegio de San Juan de Letran
In the case at bar, the respondents were given opportunity to be heard and were in fact Ponente: Brion, J.
granted an extension to file their statements. They were also given ample opportunity
to adduce evidence on their behalf and answer the charges leveled against them. They CASE SUMMARY:
are also assisted with a counsel. Disciplinary cases involving students also need not The case at bar is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision and
necessarily include the right to cross-examination. resolution of Court of Appeals which reversed the decision of the RTC of Caloocan
and denied petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioners claim that
ACADEMIC FREEDOM respondents should be held liable for moral, exemplary and actual damages for
Sweezy v. New Hampshire defines academic freedom as the freedom to unlawfully dismissing petitioner Kim Go. The respondents on the other hand claim
choose who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught and who that they lawfully suspended Go for violating the school’s rule on fraternity
may be admitted to study. membership.
“Academic freedom”, the term as it evolved to describe the emerging rights
related to intellectual liberty, has traditionally been associated with freedom FACTS OF THE CASE:
of thought, speech, expression and the press; in other words, with the right of Acting on a received report that certain fraternities were recruiting new
individuals in university communities, such as professors, researchers and members, school authorities commenced an investigation which included medical
administrators, to investigate, pursue, discuss and, in the immortal words of examination on the students whose names were included in the list submitted to the
Socrates, “to follow the argument wherever it may lead,” authorities. Upon examination, 4 students namely: Raphael Fulgencio, Nicolas
Guaranteed by Sec 8 (2) of the 1973 Constitution which stated that “All Lacson, Carlos Parilla and Isaac Gumba who ten admitted that they were neophytes of
institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom.” the Tau Gamma Fraternity and identified Go as one of the senior members of the
fraternity. Kim Go denied the said allegations and the school requested that his parents
attend the conference aimed to address the issue of the former’s fraternity membership
in which neither parent attended. It was proven later on that Kim was indeed a member
of the fraternity. Upon meeting with the president of Letran, the 4th year students were
allowed to graduate while those that were not in their fourth year were allowed to
finish the year but were barred from enrolling again. The decision to suspend Kim was
conveyed to Mrs Go while his father did not attend the said conference.
The respondents then again conferred with the parents to discuss the
extension classes the students would take to make up for classes missed during their
suspension and such would enable the students to meet all academic requirements and
graduate from the school. Mr. and Mrs Go refused to sign a pro-forma agreement and
insisted that their son was not a fraternity member and that due process had not been
observed.
HELD:
While the Commission has the authority to require an alien to register, such
a requirement must be predicated on a positive finding that the person who
is required to do so is an alien. In this case, there should have been a prior
determination that the petitioners were aliens before the Commission ask
them to register as such.
The power to deport is an act of the State and a police measure against
undesirable aliens whose presence to the country is injurious to public good.
While a deportation proceeding is not criminal in nature, the constitution
right of a person to due process should not be denied.
Applying such to the case at bar, the charge against the alien must specify
the acts or omissions complained and it must be stated in clear and ordinary
language. The Court also sees no reason as to why a private prosecutor
should be allowed to participate in a deportation case.
13. MACEDA v. ERB 14. CORONA v. UHPAP
G.R. No. 96266. July 18, 1991. G.R. No. 111953. December 12, 1997.
Petitioner: Ernesto Maceda Petitioner/s: Renato Corona (A.S. Legal Affairs), Jesus Garcia (DOTC Sec), Rogelio
Respondents: Energy Regulation Board, Caltex, Shell and Petron Dayan (GM of PPA)
Ponente: Medialdea, J. Respondents: United Harbor Pilots Association of the Philippines, Manila Pilots
Association
FACTS: Ponente: Romero, J.
Petitioner in this case seeks the nullification of the ERB Orders on the grounds that
the hearings conducted in relation to the provisional increase did not llow him cross- Key take-away: In order to fall within the aegis of Sec. 1 Article 3, two conditions
examination hence a denial of due process. The Persian Gulf conflict prompted the must concur
private respondent oil companies to file for applications on oil price increase and the (1) There is a deprivation
ERB granted a provisional increase of 1.42 per liter. Herein petitioner also filed for a (2) Deprivation is done without proper observance of due process
petition for prohibition to nullify such increase but such petition was dismissed by the a. Procedural- method/manner by which the law was enforced
Court, reiterating that ERB has the authority to grant provisional increase even without b. Substantive- law itself is fair, reasonable and just.
prior hearing.
Acting on the said complaint, the ERB outlined the procedure to be observed in the FACTS:
reception of evidence and provided that it will defer cross examination. Petitioner The PPA was created pursuant to PD No 505 and its charter was made pursuant to PD
faults this and maintains that by adopting such relaxed procedure, the ERB deprived 857 granting it the power to control, regulate and supervise pilots and pilotage
him of due process and right to cross examine the witnesses. profession. Several measures were implemented including the limit on appointments
to harbor pilot positions for a term of one year from date of effectivity and subject to
ISSUE: W/N there has been a deprivation of due process renewal or cancellation by the Authority. Respondents questioned the said issuance
before the secretary of DOTC but was informed that the jurisdiction to
HELD: There was no deprivation of due process. review/recall/annul PPA’s administrative issuances lies exclusively with its Board of
The Court held that the testimony both with respect to the examination of particular Directors. This ruling was appealed to the Office of the President which likewise
witness and general course of trial is within the discretion of the Court. Furthermore, dismissed the appeal and petition on the basis that the assailed issuance merely
relaxed procedures are especially true in administrative bodies in which it is more of implements Sec. 6 of PD 857 mandating the PPA to control/regulate/supervise pilots
a quasi-legislative rather than quasi-judicial function. As such, admin. Bodies are not and pilotage in any port district. Moreover, Sec. Corona opined that the exercise of
bound by technical rules of evidence. one’s profession falls within the constitutional guarantee against wrongful
deprivation of, or interference with property rights without due process. In the case
DISSENT, PARAS, J. at bar, the assailed issuance did not constitute to a wrongful deprivation but was only
The ERB has no power to tax by subsidizing the ravenous oil companies. aimed to improve pilotage services. The respondents then filed a petition for certiorari,
prohibition and injunction before RTC Manila Branch 6.
DISSENT, PADILLA, J.
Any kind of increase of prices of oil prices should be allowed only after the ERB fully RULING OF THE RTC:
determined through bona fide and full dress hearings that it is absolutely necessary. Respondents have acted in grave abuse of discretion
All assailed issuances are declared null and void
Respondents are permanently enjoined from implementing assailed PPA
issuances
Pilotage is a profession and therefore a property right and emtails that any
withdrawal/alteration must be made strictly in accordance with the due
process of law. Such was not observed by the PPA when it did not conducted
public hearings.
ISSUE: W/N Philippine Ports Authority violated respondents’ right to exercise their
profession and their right to due process of law when it limited the term of appointment
of harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation
HELD: willful breach of trust. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a complaint for illegal
YES. THE ASSAILED ISSUANCE UNDULY RESTRICTS THE RIGHT OF dismissal and recanted his sworn statement.
HARBOR PILOTS TO ENJOY THEIR PROFESSION BEFORE THEIR
RETIREMENT. THE RULING OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND NLRC
In reiterating that due process was not observed in the absence of a public The LA Benigno Villarente rendered a decision which declared the dismissal
hearing, the respondents are invoking procedural due process. In line with this, of the petitioner illegal and ordered the respondents to reinstate petitioner and ay him
jurisprudence dictates that so long as the party was given the opportunity to defend his backwages and benefits from the time of illegal dismissal until actual reinstatement.
interests in due course, there is no violation of due process for the opportunity to be The said decision was appealed to the NLRC which then reversed the decision and
heard is the very essence of due process. Moreover, it is satisfied when a person is dismissed the case for lack of merit.
granted an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action/ruling complained of.
Regarding the substantive merits of the case, notice and hearing, as the ISSUE: W/N the dismissal was legally justified.
fundamental requirements of procedural due process are essential only when an
administrative body exercises quasi-judicial functions. Moreover, there is no HELD: No. The dismissal was illegal.
contention that pilotage is a profession in which an individual has to earn his license The Labor Code mandates that the requirements for valid dismissal of an employee
which would then allow them to engage in pilotage till they retire at age 70. must be two-fold procedural and substantive. Not only must there be ample basis/valid
By implementing the assailed issuance, harbor pilots would not be able to enjoy their cause but also the requirements of due process NOTICE AND HEARING must also
professions before the compulsory retirement. In a real sense, it is deprivation of be observed at all times. In line with this, the Court affirms the finding of the labor
property without due process of law. arbiter that the petitioner was terminated without the benefit of due process of law. It
is evident in the case that the petitioner was denied the right to the assistance of a
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ counsel during the investigation. While administrative and quasi-judicial bodies are
not bound by technical rules of procedure, the right to counsel is a very basic
requirement that must be observed.
15. SALAW v. NLRC
G.R. No. 90786. September 27, 1991. CARDINAL PRIMARY RIGHTS (taken from Ang Tibay)
Petitioner/s: Espero Salaw 1. Right to a hearing | present evidence
Respondents: National Labor Relations Commission, Associated Bank and Jose 2. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
Tengco and Rollie Tuazon 3. Sufficient basis for decision
Ponente: Sarmiento, J. 4. Admission of substantial evidence
5. Decision must be rendered on the evidence presented or contained on record and
Case Summary: disclosed to the parties affected
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision rendered in NLRC 6. NLRC must act on its own independent consideration of the merits of the case,.
Case No. 4-1272-85 dated July 26, 1989, affirming the dismissal of the petitioner by 7. The Court should render the decision in such a manner that parties to the proceeding
the respondent bank, and reversing thereby the Decision2 of Labor Arbiter Benigno know the various issues involved and the reason for the decisions rendered.
C. Villarente, Jr. of March 29,1988 which declared the petitioner's dismissal as illegal
and ordered his reinstatement with backwages and benefits.
FACTS:
Petitioner is employed with the responder as credit-investigator-appraiser and
his duties included inspecting, investigating, and identifying the company’s foreclosed
assets and verifying the encumbrances of titles of properties mortgaged to the
respondents. On November 27, 1984, a sworn statement which states that the petitioner
corroborated with a certain Reynaldo Madrigal and sold 20 sewing machines and
electric generators for 60,000 php was extracted from the petitioner without the
assistance of a counsel. April the following year, the petitioner was terminated from
his employment due to alleged serous misconduct/willful disobedience and fraud or
16. PEOPLE v. NAZARIO 17. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 90786. September 27, 1991. G.R. No. 148560. November 19, 2001.
Petitioner/s: People of the Philippines Petitioner/s: Joseph Estrada
Respondents: Eusebio Nazario Respondents: Sandiganbayan
Ponente: Sarmiento, J. Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
FACTS: FACTS:
The respondent was charged with various violations of municipal ordinances in Petitioner Joseph Estrada prosecuted An Act Defining and Penalizing the
Pagbilao, Quezon Province. Initially, the respondent admitted to the said violations Crime of Plunder, wishes to impress upon the Court that the assailed law is so
but would later argue that such ordinances were unconstitutional or do not apply to his defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which divides the valid
case. The respondent was an owner and operator of a fishpond and was found guilty from the constitutionally infirm. His contentions are mainly based on the effects of the
of refusing to pay the municipal taxes amounting to 362.62 required of him as a said law that it suffers from the vice of vagueness; it dispenses with the "reasonable
fishpond operator. From the evidence adduced by him, the taxes sought to be collected doubt" standard in criminal prosecutions; and it abolishes the element of mens rea in
have already lapsed and that there is no law empowering municiplaities to pass crimes already punishable under The Revised Penal Code saying that it violates the
ordinances taxing fishpond operators and that there is still no fishpond yet being fundamental rights of the accused.
operated by him since it was still under construction during the period covered by the The focal point of the case is the alleged “vagueness” of the law in the terms it uses.
taxes sought to be collected. The trial court held the respondent guilty and was Particularly, this terms are: combination, series and unwarranted. Because of this, the
sentenced to pay a fine of 50 php hence the filing of this appeal. petitioner uses the facial challenge on the validity of the mentioned law.
ISSUES: Issue:
W/N the assailed ordinances are null and void for being ambiguous and uncertain Whether or not the petitioner possesses the locus standi to attack the validity
W/N the assailed ordinance is unconstitutional for being an ex post facto law of the law using the facial challenge.
2. WON the Plunder Law requires less evidence for providing the predicate
crimes of plunder and therefore violates the rights of the accused to due process
18. FEEDER v. CA 19. CB v. CA
G.R. No. 94262. May 31, 1991. G.R. No. 76118. March 30, 1993.
Petitioner/s: Feeder International Line PTE Petitioner/s: Central Bank of the Philippines and Ramon Tiaoqui
Respondents: Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals, Customs Respondents: Court of Appeals, Triumph Savings Bank
Ponente: Regalado, J. Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
FACTS: FACTS:
The M/T ULU WAI was a foreign vessel owned by the petitioner which anchored in The case at bar is a petition for review assailing the decision of the CA which affirmed
Iloilo without notifying the Iloilo customs authorities. Upon investigation, it was the twin orders of the Quezon City RTC which denied petitioners’ motion to dismiss
shown that the vessel did not possess the required ship and shipping documents except and directed petitioner Tiaoqui to restore the management of TSB to its elected board
for a clearance from port authorities of Singapore clearing the vessel for Zambaon. of directors and officers.
Consequently, the cargo was held and a warrant of seizure and detention was issued The examination reports submitted by the petition show that the financial condition
in which the petitioner filed the motion to dismiss and to quash the said warrant. After of the TSB is one of insolvency which prompted the Monetary Board to order its
considering the premises, the district collector ruled that the vessel was guilty of closure and placing it under receivership with petitioner Tiaoqui as receiver. TSB then
violating Sec. 2530 (a) of Tariff and Customs Code and must be forfeited in favor of filed a complaint with Quezon City RTC challenging the constitutionality of Sec. 29,
the Philippines. Acting on such decision, the petitioner appealed to the Commissioner RA 269 (The Central Bank Act) in so far as it authorizes the Central Bank to take over
of Customs, Court of Tax Appeals and Court of Appeals all of which affirmed the a banking institution even if it’s not charged of any violation of law/regulation. The
decision of the district collector. Not willing to give up, the petitioners filed the instant RTC then granted such complaint and likewise dismissed petitioners’ motion to
petition and contends that they were deprived of property without due process of law dismiss and ordered petitioner to return the management of the company to the board.
in that its right to be presumed innocent was not recognized and the decision was not The Court of Appeals also upheld the said decision hence the instant petition.
supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
PETITIONERS’ CONTENTION
ISSUE: W/N petitioners were deprived of their property without due process (1) The respondent court erred in affirming that the summary closure was
arbitrary and in bad faith and constitutes a denial of due process.
HELD: The contention is without merit
A forfeiture proceeding under tariff and customs law is not penal but is merely RESPONDENTS’ CONTENTIONS
administrative and civil in character. In line with this, the proof required is only (1) Prior notice and hearing must be afforded and in the absence of such, the
substantial evidence which pertains to relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might resolution is void for want of due process.
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Also, the right to assistance of a counsel is
not indispensable to due process unless required by the Constitution or a statute. ISSUE:
WN the absence of prior notice and hearing may be considered acts of arbitrariness
and bad faith?
HELD:
Sec 29 of RA 265 which vested the Central Bank with exclusive authority to assess,
evaluate the condition of any bank does not contemplate any prior notice and hearing
before a bank may be directed to stop operations and placed under receivership.
Despite the absence of such, Sec. 29 does not altogether divest a bank/non-bank
financial institution the right to be heard because within 10 days from the date of
receiver takes charge of the assets of the bank, resort to judicial review may be
obtained.
20. PEREZ v. MADRONA 21. AMERICAN INTERFASHION GROUP v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
G.R. No. 184478. March 21, 2012. G.R. No. 184478. March 21, 2012.
Petitioner/s: Jaime Perez, Chief of Marikina Demolition Office Petitioner/s: American Inter-Fashion Corporation
Respondents: Fortunato Madrona and Yolanda Pante Respondents: Office of the President, Textile Export Board and Glorious Sun Fashion
Ponente: Villarama, J. Garments.
Ponente: Gutierrez, J.
FACTS:
The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, seeking to set FACTS:
aside prior decisions of the CA which affirmed the findings of the RTC Marikina The GTEB declared respondent Glorious Sun guilty of misdeclaration of imported raw
Branch 192 which granted the prayer of injunction of the respondents against the materials and held that its export quotas given to De Soleil Apparel and American Inter
petitioner. Fashion Corporation should be cancelled. It was also alleged that majority of the
Petitioners are registered owners of a residential property located in Lot 22, investors of the two corporations were either stockholder of GS or a member/crony of
Greenheaights Subdivision which was covered by Transfer Certificate and Registry of Marcos on the other. The Office of the President then set aside the decision of the
Deeds and is enclosed with a concrete fence and steel gate. A letter was then sent to GTEB and remanded the case for genuine hearing where due process would be
respondents informing them of various violations of regulations and was given 7 days accorded to both parties.
to remove the concrete fence and steel gate. Instead of complying, the respondents
replied that the letter is libelous in nature as it is condemning them and their property GLORIOUS’ CONTENTIONS:
without due process, has no basis and authority due to absence of a court order and (1) GTEB decision was not supported by evidence.
contained a false accusation since the fence did not extend to the side walk. (2) The GTEB decision cancelling their export quotas is a result of duress, threats and
The petitioners then filed a complaint for injunction before the Marikina RTC. Several intimidation.
legal proceedings ensued and the RTC then granted the injunction and enjoined the
petitioners to perform any act that may demolish the perimeter fence. PETITIONERS’ CONTENTIONS
The RTC held that respondents, being lawful owners of the subject (1) Office of the President erred in taking cognizance of Glorious Sun’s appeal
property, are entitled to the peaceful and open possession of every inch of their since it amounted to an administrative review
property and petitioner’s threat to demolish the concrete fence around their (2) And that it had long ago abandoned its right to appeal
property is tantamount to a violation of their rights as property owners who are (3) It erred in finding that there was a violation of the rights to due process
entitled to protection under the Constitution and laws. The petitioner appealed to
the CA which then likewise affirmed the assailed decision. ISSUE: W/N the Malacanang decision suffers from grave abuse of discretion.
HELD: No. In Sison Jr. v. Ancheta, the court held that "xxx It suffices then that the
laws operate equally and uniformly on all persons under similar circumstances or
that all persons must be treated in the same manner, the conditions not being
different, both in the privileges conferred and the liabilities imposed. If the law
be looked upon in tems of burden on charges, those that fall within a class should be
treated in the same fashion, whatever restrictions cast on some in the group equally