BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS VS COA

:Doctrine: Due process in administrative proceedings does not require the submission of pleadings
or a trial-type of hearing. However, due process requires that a party is duly notified of the
allegations against him or her and is given a chance to present his or her defense

FACTS

Verlina Silo (Silo) and Evelyn Yap were designated as Acting Bank Officer III and Bank
Officer II, respectively in light of Gayak’s (Bank officer III, BSP) being assigned to Davao
Regional Office.

In the morning of December 22, 2005, COA’s Audit Team finished auditing Silo's
accountability and proceeded to audit Yap's cash accountability. however, the Audit Team
could no longer locate Silo.

A text message was sent by Silo to Dequita, Manager of Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
Cotabato Branch, admitting misappropriating a portion of Yap's accountability when she still
had custody over it. Thus, a piece by piece cash count was conducted by the Audit team and
found shortage in the amount ofP32,701,600.00 from Yap's cash accountabilities. The
following day, SIlo executed an affidavit claiming full responsibility for the shortage.
However, Yap, Dequita and the other bank officers were still held liable for the cash
shortage.

ISSUE

Whether or not the COA denied Yap, Dequita and the other bank officers administrative
due process

RULING

Yes. Due process in administrative proceedings does not require the submission of
pleadings or a trial-type of hearing. Due process is satisfied if the party is duly notified of the
allegations against him or her and is given a chance to present his or her defense.
Furthermore, due process requires that the proffered defense should have been considered
by the tribunal in arriving at its decision.

Administrative due process requires: (a) The party should be allowed to present his or
her own case and submit supporting evidence; (b)The deciding tribunal must consider the
party's evidence; (c)There is evidence to support the tribunal's decision; (d)The evidence
supporting the tribunal's decision must be substantial or such "relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion"; (e)The tribunal's
decision was based on the evidence presented or the records of the case disclosed to the
parties; (f)The tribunal's decision must be based on the judges' independent consideration of
the facts and law governing the case; and (g)The tribunal's decision must be rendered such
that the issues of the case and the reasons for the decisions are known to the parties.
 It was an error amounting to grave abuse of discretion to hold Yap liable, and Dequita
and the other bank officers of the Cotabato Branch jointly and solidarity liable with Yap for
the cash shortage without an actual complaint being filed and without giving them the
chance to defend themselves. Thus, the assailed Decision violated the basic tenets of due
process and must be annulled and set aside. The criminal and administrative charges against
them are dismissed.

NESTLE PHILS INC VS PUEDAN

:doctrine:(1) Any seeming defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a
motion for reconsideration, and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a
party who was afforded the opportunity to be heard

:doctrine:(2) Due process in administrative proceedings does not require the submission of
pleadings or a trial-type of hearing. However, due process requires that a party is duly notified of
the allegations against him or her and is given a chance to present his or her defense

FACTS

On July 6, 2012, the respondents filed a complaint against petitioner NPI for illegal
dismissal and demanding for separation pay, nominal damages and attorney’s fees. The
respondents alleged that Ocho de Setiembre Inc. (ODSI) and Nestle Philippines Inc. (NPI)
hired them to sell various products of NPI in the assigned covered area. After sometime, the
respondents demanded that they be considered regular employees of NPI but they were
directed to sign contracts of employment with ODSI instead. However, the respondents
refused to comply with such directives resulting to their dismissal.

The case was filed with the Labor Arbiter. Proceedings with the LA commenced.
However, the NPI did not file any position paper or appear in the scheduled conferences.

NPI essentially claims that it was deprived of its right to due process when it was not
notified of the proceedings before the LA and did not receive copies and issuances from the
other parties and the LA, respectively

ISSUE

Whether or not NPI was denied due process

RULING

No. NPI was furnished via courier of a copy of the amended complaint filed by the
respondents against it as shown by LBC Receipt No. 125158910840. It is also apparent that
NPI was also furnished with the respondents’ Position Paper, Reply, and Rejoinder.

NPI was indeed accorded due process, but as the LA mentioned, the former chose not
to file any position paper or appear in the scheduled conferences.

Assuming that NPI was somehow deprived of due process by either of the labor
tribunals, such defect was cured by: (a) NPI’ s filing of its motion for reconsideration before
the NLRC; (b) the NLRC’s subsequent issuance of its Resolution dated August 30, 2013
wherein the tribunal considered all of NPI’s arguments as contained in its motion; and (c)
NPI’s subsequent elevation of the case to the CA

the foregoing shows that NPI was not denied due process of law as it was afforded the
fair and reasonable opportunity to explain its side.