DIVAH A.

BOQUECOSA
Administrative Law 2019
Saturday 8 AM- 11 AM

JURISPRUDENTIAL EVOLUTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS

It is undoubted that the due process mandate must be satisfied by an administrative

tribunal or agency. So it was announced by Justice Laurel in the landmark case of Ang Tibay v
Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940) the cardinal primary requirements which must
be respected in administrative proceedings. For administrative bodies, due process can be
complied with by observing the following: “(1) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to
present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof; (2) The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented; (3) The decision must have something to support itself; (4) The evidence
must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind
accept as adequate to support a conclusion; (5) The decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
(6) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of
the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate; (7) The
Board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision
rendered.” As discussed in the case of Disciplinary Board, Land Transportation Office, et al. vs.
Mercedita E. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 224395, July 3, 2017),it was stated that:

“In administrative proceedings, procedural due process simply means the opportunity to
explain one’s side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of. ‘To be heard’ does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may also be heard thru
pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is
accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process.”
 It can be deduced from the aforementioned court rulings that the essence of
administrative procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice and a real
opportunity to be heard.

“Opportunity to be heard” in relation to due process in administrative proceedings, does

not always require a “trial-type proceeding.” In the leading case of Ledesma v Court of Appeals,
the Supreme Court ruled that “due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in
all situations require a trial-type proceeding. 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, 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. The
essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of.”

The case of Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (2013) stated further
that the essence of due process is to be heard. As applied to administrative proceedings, this
means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The observance of fairness in the conduct
of any investigation is at the very heart of procedural due process. Administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense, for in the former a formal or
trial-type hearing is not always necessary, and technical rules of procedure are not strictly
applied.

In Arboleda v. National Labor Relations Commission, the Court expounded that

administrative due process does not necessarily connote full adversarial proceedings, to wit:

The requirement of notice and hearing in termination cases does not connote full
adversarial proceedings as elucidated in numerous cases decided by this Court. Actual adversarial
proceedings become necessary only for clarification or when there is a need to propound
searching questions to witnesses who give vague testimonies. This is a procedural right which the
employee must ask for since it is not an inherent right, and summary proceedings may be
conducted thereon.

Thus, while the Court in Arboleda recognized that the lack of a formal hearing does not necessarily
transgress the due process guarantee, it did not however regard the formal hearing as a mere superfluity.

In Saunar v. Ermita, the court opined that it is a procedural right that may be invoked by the party. It
is true that in subsequent cases, the Court reiterated that a formal hearing is not obligatory in administrative
proceedings because the due process requirement is satisfied if the parties are given the opportunity to explain
their respective sides through position papers or pleadings. Nonetheless, the idea that a formal hearing is not
indispensable should not be hastily thrown around by administrative bodies. A closer perusal of past
jurisprudence shows that the Court did not intend to trivialize the conduct of a formal hearing but merely
afforded latitude to administrative bodies especially in cases where a party fails to invoke the right to hearing
or is given the opportunity but opts not to avail of it. In the landmark case of Ang Tibay, the Court explained
that administrative bodies are free from a strict application of technical rules of procedure and are given
sufficient leeway. In the said case, however, nothing was said that the freedom included the setting aside of a
hearing but merely to allow matters which would ordinarily be incompetent or inadmissible in the usual judicial
proceedings. In fact, the seminal words of Ang Tibay manifest a desire for administrative bodies to exhaust all
possible means to ensure that the decision rendered be based on the accurate appreciation of facts. The Court
reminded that administrative bodies have the active duty to use the authorized legal methods of securing
evidence and informing itself of facts material and relevant to the controversy. As such, it would be more in
keeping with administrative due process that the conduct of a hearing be the general rule rather than the
exception.