OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD

38. Budiongan vs. Dela Cruz

Facts: Mayor Budiongan was charged for violation of Art 220 of the RPC for realigning the funds intended for the
purchase of road roller. After reinvestigation, charges was modified from Art 220 of the RPC to violation of Sec 3 (e)
and 3 (h) of RA 3019 for allegedly having interest in a transaction in connection with which he intervenes.

Issue: WON modification on the charges violates the due process of Mayor Budiongan

Ruling: No, they were not deprived of due process and opportunity to be heard because they were given the
opportunity to refute the charges by filing their counter-affidavits. The modification of the offenses charged did not
come as a surprise because it was based on the same set of facts and the same alleged illegal acts.

39. Almendras Jr. vs. Almendras

Facts: Almendras Jr. sent letters with similar content to the House Speaker Jose de Venecia and Nemesio Prudente,
president of Oil Carriers. This letters with evident bad faith and manifest malice to destroy Alexis Almendras’ good
name. Almendras Jr. was charged with libel and despite several rescheduling of hearings Almendras Jr. failed to
present evidence, except from his answer.

40. Uyboco vs. People of the Phil.

Facts: Uyboco was charged together with Rodolfo Valencia for violating RA 3019. Uyboco alleges that his former
counsel, due to blatant error, abuse of discretion and gross competence, did not present any evidence in his
defense.

Ruling: (exactly the same with Almendras Jr and Uyboco also the same contention, that they weren’t given the
opportunity to be heard and that they weren’t able to present evidence on their behalf)

They were not deprived of their due process. A client is bound by his counsel’s conduct, negligence and mistake in
handling a case, and to allow a client to disown his counsel’s conduct would render the proceeding indefinite.

41. Roxas vs. Vasquez

Facts: Roxas was charged for violation of RA 3019 for the disbursement of vouchers intended to buy fire trucks. The
Ombusdman indicted Roxas but the Special Prosecutor recommended the dismissal of his case which was
subsequently approved. But at a later date, a resolution was granted to include Roxas, Nacpil and Kairan in the
complaint. The Office of the Ombudsman filed an amended information with the Sandiganbayan impleading Roxas
et. al.

Ruling: It appears that Roxas et al were deprived of due process when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the
complaint against them without their knowledge. (opposite to the ruling of the almendras and uyboco case)

42. Marahombsar vs Judge Adiong

Facts: Mahombras filed a complaint against Judge Adiong charging him with gross ignorance of law, abuse of
discretion and conduct unbecoming of a judge in connection with his issuance of a TRO and preliminary restraining
order against MS. Bailinang Marahombsar, without the benefit of a hearing.

Ruling: No violation of right to due process. A TRO is generally granted without notice to the opposite party and is
intended only as a restraint on him. Judge Adiong was justified on issuing the TRO ex parte due to his assessment of
the urgency of the relief sought. Marahombras was able to move for a reconsideration of the TRO, hence his right to
due process was not violated.
*The essence of due process is that a party is afforded a REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND TO
PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE HE MAY HAVE IN SUPPORT OF HIS DEFENSE.

*Due process of law requires that every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. The finding of probable
course against petitioners in proceeding which they had neither knowledge or participation therein, is a violation
to their right to procedural due process.

EXCEPTION TO NOTICE AND HEARING REQUIREMENTS

43. Philcomsat vs. Alcuaz

Facts: Philcomsat, through RA 5144, was granted a franchise to establish, construct and operate in the Philippines
for international satellite communications. But through EO 196, Philcomsat was required, under jurisdiction of NTC,
to apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for authority to operate, which they did. In granting
authority, NTC ordered the reduction of 15% on present rates.

Ruling: Court ruled in favor of Philcomsat. Where the function of an administrative agency is legislative, notice and
hearing are not required. But where an order applies to a named person, such as this case, the function involved is
adjudicatory.

*General rule is that notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where the acts in
exercise if executive, administrative or legislative functions; but where PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE BODY ACTS IN
JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER, AND ITS ACTS ARE PARTICULAR AND IMMEDIATE RATHER THAN GENERAL
AND PROSPECTIVE, THE PERSON WHOSE RIGHTS OR PROPERTY MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE ACTION IS ENTITLED TO
NOTICE AND HEARING.

44. Suntay vs. People

Facts: Suntay was charged with Seduction for having carnal knowledge with Alcia Nubla. After which, he was able to
get a passport and left to San Francisco, California.

Ruling: Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When discretion id exercised by an officer
vested wit it upon an undisputed fact, such as filing of as erious criminal charge against the passport holder, hearing
may be dispensed by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of the passport.

45. De Biscchop vs. Galang

Facts: Biscchop, American citizen, president and manager of Bissmag Prod was allowed to stay in the Phil. for 3
years. Officer De Mesa of Bureau of Immigration found that Bissmag Prod is more of a gambling front than an
enterprise. His application for extension was denied was ordered to leave within 5 days. When he asked to be
furnished the copy of the decision, he was also denied.

Ruling: The administration of immigration laws is primarily a responsibility of the Executive. It is purely discretionary
on their part and the courts have no jurisdiction to review the purely administrative practice of immigration
authorities of not granting formal hearing in certain cases and circumstances may warrant for reasons of
expediency and practicability. This will not violate the due process.

46. Var Orient Shipping Co., Inc & Comninos Bros vs. Achacoso

Facts: Var Orient filed a complaint against Bunyog et al for having allegedly violating their contracts of employment
with them, which supposedly resulted in damages. Both parties then agreed to sumit their respective position
papers and thereafter the case would be submitted for decision. Decision was rendered by Achacoso, POEA
Administrator ordering Var Orient to pay Bunyog et al. Var Orient contended that they didn’t receive any decision.

Ruling: During a hearing of the case it was agreed by the partied that they would file their respective memoranda
and thereafter consider the case submitted for decision. This procedure is authorized by law to expedite the
settlement of labor disputes. When a motion to resolve and a motion for execution was filed, Var Orient’s counsel
did not oppose.

ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

47. Ang Tibay vs. CIR

Facts: Ang Tibay, a leather company, laid off a number of employees due to alleged shortage of leather. The National
Labor Union, Inc (NLU) questioned this because only members of the said union were laid off and no member of the
National Workers’ Brotherhood (NWB) were discharged. NLU claimed that NWB is a company-dominated union, and
that such lay off is an action of union busting made by Ang Tibay owned by Toribio.

Issue: WON NLU is entitled to a new trial in Court of Industrial Relation (CIR) for the motion of reconsideration.

Ruling: Yes. CIR is a special court whose functions are specifically stated in the law of its creation (Commonwealth
Act No. 103). It is not intended to be a mere receptive organ of the Government, rather it is more active, affirmative
and dynamic. It has the duty to administer the prevention, arbitration, decision and settlement, of any industrial or
agricultural disputes. And in settling disputes, it is required to comply with the fundamental and essential
requirements of due process in trials and investigations of an administrative character:

1. 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.

2. tribunal must consider the evidence presented.

3. have something to support the decision

4. evidence must be "substantial." - such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind accepts as adequate to
support a conclusion."

5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
record and disclosed to the parties affected. Only by confining the administrative tribunal to the evidence
disclosed to the parties, can the latter be protected in their right to know and meet the case against them.

6. The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in
arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally Relations personally to
decide all controversies coming before them.

7.The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner
that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decision
rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

Upon reviewing, the records show that the newly discovered evidence or documents obtained by NLU, which they
attached to their petition with the SC, were evidence so inaccessible to them at the time of the trial that even with
the exercise of due diligence they could not be expected to have obtained them and offered as evidence in the
CIR. And such documents are of such far reaching importance and effect that their admission would necessarily
mean the modification and reversal of the judgment rendered in favor of Ang Tibay. Thus, SC concluded that
interest of justice would be better served if the movant is given opportunity to present at the hearing the
documents referred to in his motion and such other evidence as may be relevant to the main issue involved.
48. Montemayor vs Araneta University Foundation

Facts: Prof. Felix Montemayor assails his dismissal by the Araneta University Foundation over claims of sexual
advancement against a colleague and a student. He claims that he was denied due process when the investigating
committee denied his petition to postpone the hearing. The hearing proceeded and the penalty was promulgated
despite Montemayor’s absence.

While the charges against him amount to a sufficient cause for removal, Montemayor demands protection of
procedural due process where a hearing must be conducted before a faculty member may be condemned.

Issue: WON Montemayor was deprived of procedural due process when he was unable to participate in the hearing
over the charges against him

Ruling: Montemayor was not deprived of his right to procedural due process. As stressed by the Solicitor General,
Montemayor was given the right to due process and the right to be heard when the case was elevated to the Labor
Commission for review. He given the opportunity to answer the charges against him before the labor arbiter.

49. Meralco vs. PSC

Facts: Meralco filed petitions to lower their energy rates. However, the General Auditing Office (GAO) of the Public
Service Commission (PSC) examined Meralco’s books and recommended a further reduction. An “informal hearing”
was conducted between Meralco and GAO, where Meralco was ordered to submit a statement specifying their
objections to the COA report. However, without conducting further hearings, PSC rendered a decision ordering
Meralco to further reduce their rates.

Meralco claims denial of due process because they were not given a chance to present evidence and cross-examine
the auditors in a formal hearing. PSC contends that allowing Meralco to cross-examine the witnesses would hamper
and delay the investigation.

Issue: WON the PSC violated due process in rendering a decision without holding a formal hearing.

Ruling: PSC violated due process in rendering a decision without holding a formal hearing. The preliminary hearing
was conducted only to have “understanding” between the parties. However, no hearings were set. Meralco was
denied opportunity to rebut the auditor’s statements nor present evidence justifying their rates.

PSC’s contention that cross-examining the witnesses would hamper the investigations in untenable. There should be
no short cuts in due process when there is deprivation of life, liberty, and property. It would have been better to
delay the decision over the matter if the PSC conducted further inquiries since the reduction would affect Meralco’s
rights and the public interest.

50. Ateneo de Manila University vs. CA

Facts: The Ateneo de Manila University dismissed Juan Ramon Guanzon for cursing and slapping a waitress in the
school cafeteria after an exchange of words. The school conducted hearings concerning the incident where Juan was
informed of the charges against him. However, the parents of Juan assails their son’s dismissal and that there was no
due process because they were never informed of the hearings.

Issue WON Juan’s dismissal violated due process because his parents were never informed of the hearings

Ruling: Juan’s dismissal did not violate due process. The school conducted an investigation over the incident,
interviewed witnesses, and issued a notice of hearing in the bulletin board. Juan has the duty to inform his parents
on the status of the case especially that he was advised by school officials to seek parental guidance. Juan was
afforded due process since he even attended the meetings and admitted the charges against him.

51. Alcuaz vs. PSBA

Facts: Students of the PSBA and the PSBA, Q.C. reached an agreement providing for the regulations for the conduct
of protest actions but despite of said agreement, it was alleged that petitioners, committed tumultuous and anarchic
acts within the premises of the school, fanned by the cooperation of the intervening teachers, causing disruption of
classes to the prejudice of the majority of the students including the intervening ones.

During the regular enrollment period, petitioners were allegedly blacklisted and denied admission for the second
semester of school year 1986-1987.

Issue: WON there has been a deprivation of due process for the students who were barred from re-enrollment by
the PSBA

Ruling: There was no deprivation of due process.

A student once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one semester. It is provided in Paragraph 137
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college student registers in a school, it is understood that he
is enrolling for the entire semester.

The right of the school to refuse re-enrollment of students for academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary
regulations has always been recognized by the Court. Being a mere privilege and not a legal right for a student to
be enrolled or re-enrolled.

The Court then upheld that there is no denial of due process where all requirements of administrative due process
were met by the school and the students were given the opportunity to be heard and that the right of expression
and assembly are not absolute especially when parties are bound to certain rules under a contract.

52. Non vs. Hon. Dames

Facts: Students of Mabini Colleges, Inc were not allowed to re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989
for leading or participating in student mass action against the school in the preceding semester.

Ruling: The right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards cannot be utilized to discriminate
against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly. It provides that every student has
the right to enroll in any school college or university upon meeting its requirements and reasonable regulations.