You are on page 1of 30

1. People v. Marti, G.R. No.

81561, 18
January 1991
2. Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel
Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila,
G.R. No. L-24693, 31 July 1967

3. Imbong v. Ochoa, 08 April 2014

4. JMM Promotion and Management,
Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
120095, 05 August 1996

5. Government of Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region v. Olalia, G.R.
No. 153657, 19 April 2007

6. Macabingkil v. Judge Yatco, G.R. No. L-
23174, 18 September 1967
7. Secretary of Justice v. Lantion, 2000

8. White Light Corporation v. City of
Manila, 2009

9. Lawrence v. Texas, 2003

10. Kwong Sing v. City of Manila, 1920

11. Yu Eng Cong v. Trinidad, 271 US 500 Facts: Act No. 2979 was a law that rendered book keeping in other languages aside from
English, Spanish, and local dialects a crime; It was created to prevent tax evasion. In this
G.R. No. L-20479 February 6, 1925
case, a Chinese businessman wrote his books in Chinese because he didn’t know English or
MALCOLM, J.: Spanish. He was immediately arrested, no litigation at all. Due process provides: “No
person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The petitioners aver that the Act, if enforced, will deprive the petitioners, and the 12,000
Chinese merchants whom they represent, of their liberty and property without due
process of law, and deny them the equal protection of the laws, in violation of the
Philippine Autonomy Act of Congress of August 29, 1916The Chinese community
petitioned for a temporary injunction against said act.

Issue: W/N Act No. 2972 is constitutional. W/N due process was violated in this case.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Legislature
assembled and by the authority of the same:

SECTION 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership or corporation
engaged in commerce, industry or any other activity for the purpose of profit in the
Philippine Islands, in accordance with existing law, to keep its account books in any
language other than English, Spanish or any local dialect.

SEC. 2. Any person violating the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be punished
by a fine of not more than ten thousand pesos, or by imprisonment for not more than two

years or both.

SEC. 3. This Act shall take effect on November first, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.

Approved, February 21, 1921.

With this law,the Chinese were driven out of business because there was no other form of
distribution and they were prey to all kinds of fraud because they will not have direct
control over their business since they will need to hire translators who can dupe them any

Yes, there was a violation of due process.

The U.S.court decided: In view of the history of the Islands and of the conditions there
prevailing, we think the law to be invalid because it deprives Chinese persons situated as
they are,with their extensive and important business long established, of their liberty and
property without due process of law, and denies them the equal protection of the laws.

Yes, by the Philippine courts, Act. No 2972 is constitutional.

The Philippine court decided: We construe Act No. 2972 as meaning that any person,
company, partnership, or corporation, engaged in commerce, industry, or any other activity
for the purpose of profit in the Philippine Islands, shall keep its account books, consisting
of sales books and other records and returns required for taxation purposes by regulations
of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, in effect when this action was begun, in English,
Spanish, or a local dialect. Agreeable to such construction, we hold Act No. 2972 valid and

The temporary injunction heretofore issued is dissolved although under the construction
given to the law it may well be doubted if the Government will care to proceed with the
criminal prosecution. If the Government should not dismiss the information, this question
may be raised by demurrer in the lower court.

was already familiar with the cases. Petitioner also contends that public respondents apparent dislike of Atty. the Swiss accounts of various foundations were forfeited in the name of the government. taken with his judicial record. J. Nos.R. recused himself on the ground that private respondent was one of the principal sponsors in his sons wedding. The petitioners then filed a Manifestation and Motion dated February 21. Chavez who is a key witness for the prosecution. . People v. puro hearsay lang naman ang sinasabi ni Chavez nong umupo ako minsan sa trial nyo. The cases raffled to another division. Leonardo-De Castro.After consolidationin the third division. petitioner moved for the inhibition of public respondent. With these events. Justice Legaspi. Gregory Ong Facts: In the Case at bar. Judge Gregory Ong has issued resolutions in in Criminal Case Nos. though. 17287 to 17291. Justice Teresita J. 162130-39 05 May 2006 permanently enjoined in the ten (10) consolidated cases against Imelda Marcos. The AZCUNA. Before the court came up with a resolution. considering that the chairperson thereof. Prior to consolidation.was chaired by Justice Godofredo Legaspi. ayaw ko sa kasong yan. Prosecutor Sulit heard public respondent say: “Actually. 2003 praying that the cases be assigned to the First Division in lieu of the proposed re- raffle. The petitioner also prays to be G. was rendered moot when the cases were actually raffled to the Fourth Division chaired by public respondent. Hon. idi-dismiss ko yan. the counsel. 19225 and 22867 to 22870.” The remark is perceived to be prejudicial and revealing a predisposition to dismiss the criminal cases. but the Sandigang Bayan reversed the decision.12. the criminal cases were in different stages of hearings.This manifestation/motion.: forfeiture cases were held in the first division. however. the petitioners filed a petition for the court to inhibit Judge Ong from the proceedings.

it is essential that judges be above suspicion. . This conversation happened before the prosecution presented their evidence. judges must pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon them. would be meaningless if the ultimate decision would come from a partial and biased judge. The court ruled:Public respondent is reminded of the principle that judges should avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety for appearance is an essential manifestation of reality.R. 19225 and 22867 to 22870 of the Sandiganbayan. any act which would give the appearance of impropriety becomes. like notice and hearing. Judge Juan. Nos. Ruling: Yes. It bears stressing that the duty of judges is not only to administer justice but also to conduct themselves in a manner that would avoid any suspicion of irregularity. Issue: W/N there was a violation of due process. the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED and public respondent is DIRECTED to recuse himself from participating in the Criminal Cases Nos. It is important to note thata requirement of due process is that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. in his chambers talked to the two young maidens who were offended in a rape case that he was presiding in. reprehensible. All the other elements of due process. Being offended by the Judge’s FERNANDO. L-39516-17 January 28. He asked them to settle because he G. Facts: Judge Celestino Juan. 1975 personally think that their case against the other party was weak. 13. there was a violation of due process. of itself. WHEREFORE. Castillo v. Hence. J. thus preserving a democratic way of life.: remarks the petitioners sought to have Judge Juan disqualified from further hearing the cases. Occupying as they do an exalted position in the administration of justice. 17287 to 17291. This arises from the avowed duty of members of the bench to promote confidence in the judicial system. In insulating the Bench from unwarranted criticism.

therefore. From what has been set forth. relationship or previous participation in the matter that calls for adjudication. It is well. thus calling for inhibition. this certainly is another one of such cases. the better course for a judge is to disqualify himself. What is even more important. or his having presided in an inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review. the ideal of an impartial administration of justice is lived up to. Judge Juan has shown impartiality is his statements. this Court has seen to it that he should disqualify himself. due process was violated. That is to betray a sense of realism.Issue: W/N due process was violated. in the exercise of his sound discretion. disqualify himself from sitting in a case. Ninth Judicial District. there may be other causes that could conceivably erode the trait of objectivity. he avoids being misunderstood. Ernesto de Villa and People of the Philippines v. That way. that if any such should make its appearance and prove difficult to resist. for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above. this Court grants the petitions for certiorari. in the event that a judge may be unable to discern for himself his inability to meet the test of the cold neutrality required of him. it is made clear to the occupants of the bench that outside of pecuniary interest. respectively entitled People of the Philippines v. The points to consider in disqualifying a judge are: Rules of Court provide for disqualification of judge outside of the instances referring to their pecuniary interest. previous connection. for the factors that lead to preferences or predilections are many and varied. relationship. The 1964 amendment contains this additional paragraph: "A judge may." An excerpt from the Villaluz opinion is again relevant: "Thereby. Criminal Cases Nos. Ernesto de Villa." What is more. so the court ruled: WHEREFORE. His reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved. and respondent Judge is ordered to desist from further conducting the trial of the two prosecutions for rape. Ruling:: Yes. Thus is due process vindicated. . 733 and 734 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon.

(2) that respondent judge Order of January 12. No. The respondent judge also released a decision to dine the complainants 100 pesos for contempt because of their hostility against him. L-55939 May 29. Issue: W/N procedural due process is violated Ruling: Yes. Syjuco asks that Judge Pineda be inhibited/disqualiified from the case because of their altercation. Atty.ñët hallucinating because he refused to side with Atty. Syjuco is TEEHANKEE. Syjuco filed an administrative case againts Judge Pineda. So atty. as first above stated. Judge Pineda also says that Atty. Syjuco’s client even if Atty. Judge Pineda says that he said the G.R. the respondent judge also refused to grant the prosecution ample opportunity to complete its rebuttal evidence. Sardinia-Linco v.: 1äwphï1. Syjuco said that his client has a lot of money. The court Ruled: ACCORDINGLY. Pineda’s client May like. Judge Pineda called Fiscal Gurrero to be a witness. Judge Pineda also continued to show impartiality. And for the judges rejection. Syjuco. Judge Pineda has clearly shown hostility. every litigant is entitled to an impartial tribunal to achieve procedural due process. Syjuco have a strained relationship in connection to a parcel of land that judge Pineda allededly offered Atty. 1981 land was from his aunt who was probably going to win a case that will grant her a parcel of land tat Atty. 1961 (Annex "FF" of the petition) the case submitted for decision upon the filing of memoranda be set aside and that the pending .14. but Judge Pineda refuses to do so. the Court has ordered and rendered judgment (1) that the People of the Philippines be deemed impleaded as petitioner. J. Facts: Judge Pineda and Atty. Judge Pineda.

as first above stated. computed according to the rules of the civil law. or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review. 1981 (Annex "EE" of the petition) sentencing petitioners Linco and Guerrero to a fine of P100. legatee. without the written consent of all parties in interest. 1981 (Annexes "W" and "DD" of the petition) denying the motion for his inhibition and disqualification is denied. is pecuniarily interested as heir. or in which he has been executor. 15. the petition to set aside respondent judge's Orders of December 10.00 each for contempt of court be set aside. Bilbao v. The CA claims that BERSAMIN. No.: Section 1. Rule 137 of the Rules of Court embodies the rule on self-disqualification by a sitting judge. creditor or otherwise. . signed by them and entered . Yes. guardian. or his wife or child.R. This is according to Rule 137. and (3) that respondent judge's Order of January 7. trustee or counsel. Judge Elumba also denied the Rebuttal of the Petitioner(Lai). 175999 July 1. for which purpose the People are given a period of thirty (30) days counted from the date first set for the purpose. or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. For lack of necessary votes. 2015 Homicide. or to counsel within the fourth degree. People. J. Disqualification of judges. viz. Issue: w/n procedural due process was violated Ruling.No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he. a judge who was a former prosecutor to the case should inhibit himself.The Rtc decided that Lai was guilty beyond of G. administrator. Facts: Burnie Fuentabella was alledgedly shot by Nelson Lai in a dance hall because Burnie took the antenna of Lai’s passenger Jeepney.: the RTC erred in the decision because Judge Elumba served as a prosecutor in the said case before. Rules of Court: 1. criminal case against private respondents be reopened for further reception of the People's rebuttal evidence. 1980 and January 6.

to wit: Section 5. but in exercising the discretion. disqualify himself from sitting in a case.21 which pertinently demands the disqualification of a judge who has previously served as a lawyer of any of the parties. or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their . but are not limited to instances where: xxxx (d) The judge served as executor. Section 1 of Rule 137. in the exercise of his sound discretion. Such proceedings include. The first paragraph enumerates the instances when the judge is prohibited and disqualified from sitting on and deciding a case.20 Reprising Section 1 of Rule 137 is Section 5. trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially.19 The second paragraph speaks of voluntary inhibition.upon the record. administrator. A judge may. guardian. for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.18 The prohibition is compulsory simply because the judge is conclusively presumed to be incapable of impartiality. contemplates two kinds of self-disqualification. whether or not the judge can sit in and try the case is left to his discretion. depending on the existence of just and valid reasons not included in the first paragraph. supra. Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. he must rely only on his conscience.

The Court Ruled: WHEREFORE. filed against several defendants. and to hear and decide Criminal Case No. the Court ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on May 27. Upon checking with the CENRO-DENR. including the free patent issued to De Pedro. Respondent alleged that the government could not legally issue the free patents because at the time of their issuance. Ko informed respondent about the documents. 17446 entitled People of the Philippines v. association. . 16. it was discovered that the DENR issued free patents covering portions of respondent’s property.R. De Pedro v. 2005 by the Court of Appeals and the judgment rendered on August 22. 2001 by the Regional Trial Court. REMANDS Criminal Case No. or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein. Rodrigo Ko. 194751 LEONEN. the Regional Trial Court issued an order declaring as nullity the titles and free patents issued to all defendants in respondent’s complaint. but she was able to show title and documents evidencing her ownership. Nelson Lai y Bilbao to the Regional Trial Court in Bacolod City with instructions to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court to assign it to any Regional Trial Judge not disqualified under Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. One of the defendants is petitioner Aurora De Pedro. and INSTRUCTS the new trial judge to resume the trial in Criminal Case No. 17446 starting from the stage just prior to the assumption of Judge Fernando R. No. 17446 with reasonable dispatch. On January 7. Ko confronted De Pedro regarding her acts. Mr. discovered sometime in November 1996 that De Pedro put up fences on a portion of its Antipolo property. Mr. x x x. respondent’s representative. Romasan Development Facts: Corporation. J. 2000. Mr.: original certificates of title. the land was already released for disposition to private individuals. 26 Nov 2014 This case originated from separate complaints for nullification of free patent and G. Elumba as the trial judge. Respondent Romasan Development Corporation alleged in its complaints that it was the owner and possessor of a parcel of land in Antipolo City.

De Pedro filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. (b) the thing or the res. including De Pedro. The Regional Trial Court also noted the committee report admitting CENRO’s irregularity in the issuance of the free patents to the defendants in the case. De Pedro argued that the Regional Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over her person because of improper and defective service of summons. (c) the parties. De Pedro filed before this court a Rule 45 petition. the filing of a motion for new trial or reconsideration is tantamount to voluntary appearance Courts may exercise their powers validly and with binding effect if they acquire jurisdiction over: (a) the cause of action or the subject matter of the case. Courts. cannot be expected to deny persons their due process rights while at the same time be considered as acting within their jurisdiction. and affirmed the denial of De Pedro’s motion for new trial. However. Issue: Whether or not the trial court decision was void for failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of petitioner Aurora De Pedro Held: Failure to serve summons will mean that the court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. The Regional Trial Court also found that the title and free patent issued to De Pedro were void.The Regional Trial Court noted that none of the defendants. and (d) the remedy. seeking the reversal of the CA decision. filed an answer to respondent’s complaints. Violation of due process rights is a jurisdictional defect. The latter dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit. Due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be notified and given an opportunity to defend those interests. as guardians of constitutional rights. The relation of due process to jurisdiction is recognized even in administrative cases wherein the standard of .

as a rule. The return did not show that the sheriff attempted to locate petitioner’s whereabouts. the rules allow summons to be served by substituted service only for justifiable causes and if the defendant or respondent cannot be served within reasonable time. AURORA N. Thus. DE PEDRO – Unserved for the reason that according to the messenger of Post Office of Pasig there is no person in the said given address. or (b) by leaving the copies at defendant’s office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof. Personal service of summons is the preferred mode of service of summons. but it is not sufficient for the court to proceed with the case with authority and competence. the sheriff’s return states: 1. De Pedro” in the service address. Respondent’s institution of a proceeding for annulment of petitioner’s certificate of title is sufficient to vest the court with jurisdiction over the res. Moreover. regardless of the nature of the action. proper service of summons is imperative. This return shows no detail of the sheriff’s efforts to serve the summons personally upon petitioner. summons must be served personally upon the defendant or respondent wherever he or she may be found. Hence. Thus. If the defendant or respondent refuses to receive the summons. Substituted service is effected “(a) by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant’s residence with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing therein.evidence is relatively lower. The summons was unserved only because the post office messenger stated that there was no “Aurora N.” In this case. A decision rendered without proper service of summons suffers a defect in jurisdiction. Other modes of serving summons may be done when justified. Service of summons through other modes will not be effective without showing serious attempts to serve summons through personal service. it shall be tendered to him or her. it cannot be concluded based on the return that personal service was rendered impossible under the circumstances or that service could no .

Palanca. she was deemed to have voluntarily participated in the proceedings against her title. No substituted service or service by publication will be allowed based on such defective return. the case would have been the proper subject of an action for annulment of judgment. No. The case would have been dismissible had petitioner learned about the case while trial was pending. to have been properly notified of the action involving her title to the property. Lack of jurisdiction could have already been raised in an action for annulment of judgment. El Banco Espanol-Filipino v. J. The lack of any demonstration of effort on the part of the sheriff to serve the summons personally upon petitioner is a deviation from this court’s previous rulings that personal service is the preferred mode of service. for purposes of due process.R. L-11390 STREET. At that time. The judgment. We cannot conclude now that she was denied due process. The actions and remedies she chose to avail bound her. 17. Engracio Palanca was indebted to El Banco and he had his parcel of land as . 1918 Facts: G. Thus. a motion to dismiss would have been proper. a petition for certiorari. when petitioner erroneously filed her motion for new trial and petition for certiorari instead of an action for annulment of judgment. the sheriff’s return in this case was defective. What cannot be denied is the fact that petitioner was already notified of respondent’s action for annulment of petitioner’s title when she filed a motion for new trial and. The issuance of a judgment without proper service of summons is a violation of due process rights. At that time. Thus. therefore. and that the sheriff must narrate in his or her return the efforts made to effect personal service. petitioner was deemed. suffers a jurisdictional defect. After the trial. later. longer be made within reasonable time. Petitioner’s failure to file an action for annulment of judgment at this time was fatal to her cause.

A decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and was recited that publication had been properly made in a periodical. and publication was made in due form in a newspaper of the city of Manila. The Clerk of Court was also directed to send copy of the summons to the defendant’s last known address. It was declared that in case of the failure of the defendant to satisfy the judgment within a period. which is in Amoy.000 in excess of the indebtedness. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear . China. a motion was made by Vicente Palanca. The SC ruled that the requisites for judicial due process had been met. 1. As the defendant was a nonresident at the time of the institution of the present action. wherein the applicant requested the court to set aside the order and to vacate all the proceedings subsequent thereto. the mortgage property located in the city of Manila should be exposed to public sale.294. which was about P75. Issue: Whether or not due process of law was observed Held: The SC ruled against Palanca. and he there died. he returned to China which appears to have been his native country. about seven years after the confirmation of this sale. as administrator of the estate of the original defendant. to his debt. An order for publication was accordingly obtained from the court. His debt amounted to P218.10. The basis of this application was that the order of default and the judgment rendered were void because the court had never acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the subject of the action. it was necessary for the plaintiff to give notice to the defendant by publication pursuant to section 399 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the execution of the instrument by the mortgagor. The requisites are.

The observations which have just been made lead to the conclusion that the failure of the clerk to mail the notice. would not avoid the judgment in this case. and decide the matter before it. though much increased. 3. prescribing the time within which appearance must be made. 2. to be considered absolutely necessary. it is evident that actual notice to the defendant in cases of this kind is not. and the chances that he should discover the notice may often be very slight. Notice was given by publication in a newspaper and this is the only form of notice which the . is everywhere recognized as essential. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property subject of the proceedings. It will be observed that this mode of notification does not involve any absolute assurance that the absent owner shall thereby receive actual notice. Even where notice is sent by mail the probability of his receiving it. Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing. under the law. we observe that in a foreclosure case some notification of the proceedings to the non-resident owner. and hence in our opinion that irregularity. as amounts to a denial of due process of law. if in fact he did so fail in his duty. To answer this necessity the statutes generally provide for publication. 4. if proved. if his residence is known. and usually in addition thereto. for the mailing of notice to the defendant. is dependent upon the correctness of the address to which it is forwarded as well as upon the regularity and security of the mail service. is not such an irregularity. Passing at once to the requisite that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard. In the light of all these facts. The periodical containing the publication may never in fact come to his hands.

and as publication was duly made in the newspaper.61. It will be observed that in considering the effect of this irregularity. as surety. On July 20. the sum of P4.352. On April 21. which motion was also denied. 18. Luzon Surety Co. it is permissible to reflect upon the purposes of the provision which is supposed to have been violated and the principle underlying the exercise of judicial power in these proceedings. it would seem highly unreasonable to hold that failure to mail the notice was fatal. We think that in applying the requirement of due process of law. all that due process of law thereafter requires is an opportunity for the defendant to be heard.. After the trial court's denial of her petition for relief from judgment on December 6. J. executed jointly and severally a surety bond for P10. 1960. as principal. v. L-26054 GUERRERO.000. The jurisdiction being once established. 1955. Inc. defendant-appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the order denying her petition for relief. as well as the faithful performance of his obligation to said Company. and defendant Jesus Panaguiton. 21 July 1978 Facts: G. Issue: Whether or not defendant was denied the fundamental right to be heard. plaintiff. the trial court rendered judgment ordering defendants to pay plaintiff within ninety days from notice jointly and severally. No. to secure the payment of all his monetary liabilities. Panaguiton.R. law unconditionally requires. it makes a difference whether it be viewed as a question involving jurisdiction or as a question involving due process of law.00 in favor of the International Tobacco Co. an essential element of procedural due process Held: . 1960.

Reyes. 19. Office of the Ombudsman v. Philippine jurisprudence is replete with decisions of this Court laying down as a fundamental part of due process the essential requisite that a party should be given an opportunity to be heard by notifying or informing him or his counsel as to when such a hearing will take place. 170512 LEONARDO DE On January 11. J. 2001. Jaime B. affording him reasonable notice of the time fixed for the hearing or trial of the case.00 in order to get a reconsideration when he failed the examination for his application of driver’s license. He denied . therefore. 2001.R. Not only have the parties the right to be present at the trial of their cases but are also entitled to a reasonable notice of the time fixed for trial. On June 19. the decision is a complete nullity insofar as she is concerned. and that judgment shall be rendered upon lawful hearing. that the defendant shall have an opportunity to be heard. Her name as a party defendant does not even appear in the list of persons to be given notice of the hearings by the Clerk of Court. 05 October 2011 Facts: G. She was. Acero executed an affidavit against respondent CASTRO. parties to the case must be notified as to when such hearing shall take place. who were the Transportation Regulation Officer II/Acting Officer-in-Charge and Clerk III of the Land Transportation Office (LTO). an essential element of procedural due process. Acero alleged that he was made to pay an additional assessment of P500. denied the fundamental right to be heard. Pealoza filed his Counter-Affidavit. that jurisdiction shall have been lawfully acquired. The court finds merit in defendant-appellant's contention that the trial court committed reversible errors." For well-entrenched indeed in our jurisprudence is the indispensable requisite that for the constitutional guarantee of the right to be heard. The court agrees with defendant- appellant's contention that not having been duly informed of the scheduled hearings. No. "Due process of law implies that there must be a court or tribunal clothed with power to hear and determine the matter before it. The trial court gravely erred in denying appellant's petition for relief. Antonio Reyes and Angelito Pealoza.

Issue: Whether or not respondent’s right to due process was violated Held: Yes.telling Acero that if the latter were willing to pay additional costs. Reyes and Pealoza would reconsider his application. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings. counsel for Peñaloza informed the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao that he was waiving his right to a formal investigation. The SC found that Reyes’ right to due process was violated when he was not furnished a copy of the affidavits of Peñaloza. as was done in the past. he requested their security guard. The essence of due process is simply to be heard. the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. Pealoza stated that he did administer the examination to Acero but since he was very busy. Dominador Daypuyat. an opportunity to explain ones side. On July 23. or as applied to administrative proceedings. Reyes indicated that Acero had to pay additional costs in order to pass the examination. After Reyes’ Motion for Reconsideration cum Motion to Set the Case for Preliminary Conference was denied. or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of . Pealoza noted the score of 22/40. 2001. After Daypuyat checked Aceros paper. the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao found Reyes guilty of grave misconduct and Peñaloza of simple misconduct. Neither of the accused appeared and the case was deemed submitted for decision. 2001. On September 24. The CA granted the petition and reversed the judgment of the Ombudsman. Amper and Valdehueza before petitioner rendered its September 2001 Decision. to check the answers of Acero using their answer guide. he filed a Petition for Review with the CA.

rumor-mongering. J. 2002. The Adjudication Committee denied the request to re-schedule the meeting upon the . Vivo v. The petitioner was then allowed to submit his answer on March 26. (4) there must be substantial evidence. hear. and loss of trust and confidence. which includes the right to present ones case and submit supporting evidence. 2002. In the present case. (6) in arriving at a decision. 20. the petitioner received the summons for him to attend an administrative inquiry. must be observed. When his counsel requested to be furnished copies of the statements. conduct prejudicial to the interest of the company. (5) the decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing. (2) the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. Ela advising that he was being administratively charged with gross misconduct. On March 14. 2002.R. instructing him to appear before PAGCOR’s Corporate Investigation Unit (CIU) on March 15. (3) the decision must have some basis to support itself. or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected. the action or ruling complained of. 2002. he (petitioner) received a letter from Teresita S. which were eventually made the bases of petitioners’ decision that found him guilty of grave misconduct. and (7) the decision must be rendered in such manner that respondents would know the reasons for it and the various issues involved. No. On February 21. the tribunal must have acted on its own consideration of the law and the facts of the controversy and must not have simply accepted the views of a subordinate. PAGCOR’s Managing Head of its Gaming Department at the time of his dismissal from office. 12 November 2013 The petitioner Ray Peter Vivo was employed by respondent (PAGCOR) and was G. the fifth requirement stated above was not complied with. PAGCOR rejected the request on the ground that he had already been afforded the sufficient opportunity to confront. 187854 BERSAMIN. Due process in administrative proceedings requires compliance with the following cardinal principles: (1) the respondents right to a hearing. Philippine Amusement and Facts: Game Corporation. and answer the charges against him during the administrative inquiry. Reyes was not properly apprised of the evidence offered against him.

His counsel moved for the reconsideration of the denial of the request. He was also able to appeal the adverse decision to dismiss him from the service to the CSC. Held: The petitioner was not denied due process of law. procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights. (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee . and to defend one’s rights. and the second being through the letter advising him that PAGCOR’s Board of Directors had resolved to dismiss him from the service. for he was afforded the fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his side. It is settled that there is no denial of procedural due process where the opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded. to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner’s right to due process was violated. He made no credible showing of the supposed violation of his right to due process. (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel. In administrative proceedings.reason that the presence of counsel was not necessary in the proceedings. There is also no question that PAGCOR complied with the twin-notice requirement prior to the termination of his employment. He actively participated in the administrative inquiry conducted by the CIU at his own residence. CA promulgated its decision reversing and setting aside the decision of the CSC upon its finding that the petitioner had been accorded procedural due process. He was heard through the written statement he submitted in response to the memorandum of the charges against him. He was afforded the opportunity to clarify his position in the proceedings before the Adjudication Committee. the first notice being made through Ela’s letter informing him on his being administratively charged for the offenses mentioned.

COMELEC. and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected. 1 as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise effectively promulgated. Sandiganbayan. Marcelo v. Romualdez v. 2008 25. Tuvera. executive orders. of honesty as well as impartiality. general orders. Bungubung. . Spouses Romualdez v. proclamations. CIR. 23 April 2008 22. a right recognized in Section 6. letters of instructions. petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish. and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees. 29 July 2004 26. 1999 24. . 1940 23. letter of implementation and administrative orders. It is settled that there is no denial of procedural due process where the opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded 21. Article IV of the 1973 Philippine Constitution. UP Board of Regents v. Ang Tibay v. Tanada v. 24 April 1985 FACTS: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern. Court of Appeals.

ISSUE: Whether or Not publication in the Official Gazette is required before a law or statute becomes valid and enforceable. fall within this category.. . Obviously.. . The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. through the Solicitor General. The very first clause of Section I of Commonwealth Act 638 reads: "There shall be published in the Official Gazette . Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned. presidential decrees that provide for fines. such as tax and revenue measures." The word "shall" used therein imposes upon respondent officials an imperative duty. would have this case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. That duty must be enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or the people.The respondents. Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. HELD: Article 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette.

On even date. petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 27. v. It paid the docket and other legal fees therefor at the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Manila RTC. he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. . 2006 Order. 2007. It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. which Boardwalk received on January 19. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law. On February 5. Boardwalk also filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC which the said court denied for being a wrong mode of appeal. 2007. 2007. but the same was denied by the RTC in a December 14. Boardwalk Business Ventures Inc. praying that it be granted 30 days. Boardwalk filed through mail its Petition for Review with the CA but the Petition for Review is hereby DISMISSED OUTRIGHT. On March 7. Villareal. to file its Petition for Review. or until March 7. 10 April 2013 FACTS: Reversing the Decision of the MeTC in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent Villareal adjudging that the former has the right to the possession of the subject motor vehicle and for the latter to pay the costs of the suit. Boardwalk through counsel filed with the Manila RTC a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review. 2007.

ISSUE: Whether or Not the Right to Appeal is a component of due process." This being so. the Rules need to be followed by appellants with greater fidelity. HELD: "The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due process. Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated. x x x 28. Their observance cannot be left to the whims and caprices of appellants. 20 April 2015 FACTS: Aggrieved by the Decision of the Regional Arbitration Branch No. x x x an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down in the Rules of Court. The rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. . Amor. In an age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. It is a mere statutory privilege. XIII of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) holding petitioner liable for constructive dismissal in view of the suspension of its operations beyond the six- month period allowed under Article 286 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Manila Mining Corporation v.

granting respondents’ petition and nullifying the NLRC’s 25 April 2005 Resolution ISSUE: Whether or Not procedural due process was violated. despite receipt of the appealed decision on 24 November 2004. reversing the appealed decision and dismissing the complaint for lack of merit.petitioner filed its memorandum of appeal before the NLRC11 and moved for the reduction of the appeal bond to ₱100.00. petitioner mailed their copy of the memorandum of appeal only on 7 February 2005. HELD: YES. respondents filed the Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the Mindanao Station of the CA which rendered the assailed decision. the NLRC Fifth Division went on to render a Resolution dated 25 April 2005. A party who seeks to avail of the right . however. and may be exercised only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law. Without addressing the procedural issues raised by respondents. Unfazed by the denial of their motion for reconsideration in the NLRC’s 30 June 2005 Resolution.000. Respondents also argued that the appeal bond tendered by petitioner was so grossly disproportionate to monetary award for the same to be considered substantial compliance with the requirements for the perfection of an appeal from a Labor Arbiter’s decision. it is merely a statutory privilege. It has been held that the right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process. respondents moved for the dismissal of the appeal in view of the fact that. In opposition.

Two complaints were ." Alongside the requirement that "the appellant shall furnish a copy of the memorandum of appeal to the other party. "Decisions." the foregoing requisites for the perfection of an appeal are reiterated under Sections 1. must. 18 February 2008 FACTS: Petitioner was the school principal of the Ramon Torres National High School (RTNHS) in Bago City. comply with the requirements of the rules. "an appeal by the employer may be perfected only upon the posting of a cash or surety bond issued by a reputable bonding company duly accredited by the [NLRC] in the amount equivalent to the monetary award in the judgment appealed from. Negros Occidental. awards. therefore." In case of a judgment involving a monetary award. failing which the right to appeal is invariably lost. A group of concerned RTNHS teachers (private complainants). Rule VI of the NLRC Rules of Procedure in force at the time petitioner appealed the Labor Arbiter’s 25 October 2004 Decision. People. sent an undated letter to the Schools Division of Bago City attaching a list of 15 irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner. Insofar as appeals from decisions of the Labor Arbiter are concerned. awards or orders. Estandarte v. 4 and 6. or orders of the Labor Arbiter are final and executory unless appealed to the [NLRC] by any or both parties within ten (10) calendar days from the receipt of such decisions.: 29. which the private complainants requested to be investigated. Article 223 of the Labor Code of the Philippines provides that. viz. the same provision mandates that.

After the City Prosecutor issued an Order attaching Bill of particulars and after the Petitioner filed her counter affiadavit. petitioner filed before the City Prosecutor a Motion for Bill of Particulars with Motion for Extension of Time to File Counter-Affidavit. The City Prosecutor served subpoena to petitioner and requiring her to submit her counter-affidavit. 3019 as amended or the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. it is a basic elementary rule that the complaint should specifically allege the criminal acts complained of. so as to enable the accused to prepare his answer or counter-affidavit accurately and intelligently. petitioner insisted that she cannot intelligently prepare her counter-affidavit unless the criminal charges and the laws she violated are specified. the City Prosecutor referred the case back to the Ombudsman which the latter found sufficient ground to held petitioner liable for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. In the Motion for Bill of Particulars. Instead of filing her counter affidavit. . HELD: While there is no rule that the initial complaint filed against an accused with the prosecutors office should specifically state the particular law under which he is being charged. petitioner alleged that there were no specific criminal charges that were stated in the subpoenas. Thus. ISSUE: Whether of Not petitioner was not accorded due process in the conduct of the preliminary investigation.eventually filed by private complainants against petitioner with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas (Ombudsman-Visayas) which was forwarded to the City Prosecutor of Bago City for preliminary Investigation.

According to petitioner.) 8249.) 18661 as amended by Republic Act No. More important. althoughAguillon was able to present his Firearm License Card.Provincial Prosecutorforwarded to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman the Resolution recommending the approval thereof.D. 30. approved the recommendation of Provincial ProsecutorDusaban to dismiss the case. by the nature of his functions. A preliminary investigation is a judicial proceeding wherein the prosecutor or investigating officer. A preliminary investigation serves not only the purposes of the State. the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Iloilo City recommended the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence. It ruled that the evidence on record proved that Aguillon did not commit the crime of illegal possession of firearm since he has a license for his rifle. Artillero (petitioner) against Barangay Captain EditoAguillon (Aguillon) for violation of Presidential Decree No. it is not a casual affair. Although a preliminary investigation is not a trial and is not intended to usurp the function of the trial court. Artillero v. Indeed. (R. (P. The officer conducting the same investigates or inquires into the facts concerning the commission of the crime. acts as a quasi-judicial officer.Petitioner claims that he never received a copy of this Resolution. In a Resolutiondated 10 September 2008. with the end in view of determining whether or not an information may be prepared against the accused. it is a part of the guarantee of freedom and fair play which are birthrights of all who live in our country. In order to satisfy the due process clause. 25 April 2012 Facts: This case pertains to the criminal charge filed by Private Inspector Ariel S. a preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case. it is not enough that the preliminary investigation is conducted in the sense of making sure that a transgressor shall not escape with impunity.A. he was not able to present a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence (PTCFOR). Casimiro. Thereafter. The Office of the Ombudsman. .

petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the 17 February 2009 Resolution. he filed the present Petition for Certiorari via Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Estrada v." We have said that where a party has been given a chance to be heard with respect to the latter’s motion for reconsideration there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of due process. Ocampo v. 31. There is no provision in Rule 112 of the Rules of Court that gives the Complainant or requires the prosecutor to observe the right to file a Reply to the accused’s counter-affidavit. 11 Feb 2014 32. A complainant in a preliminary investigation does not have a vested right to file a Reply—this right should be granted to him by law. Issue: Whether or not petitioner was denied his right to due process when he was not given a copy of Aguillon’s Counter-affidavit. Thus. Held: No. Abando. Prosecutor’s 10 September 2008 Resolution. "What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice but the absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard. the Asst. 21 January 2015 . but it was denied. and the 17 February 2009 Resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman. Office of the Ombudsman. On 22 June 2009. The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard.