What constitutes due process in

administrative cases?
 0
BY PERSIDA ACOSTA ON AUGUST 15, 2017DEARPAO
  Tweet

Persida Acosta

Dear PAO,
I am a government employe, and I did not heed an order from my superior. It was about
a transfer of office that I vehemently opposed, which I did in writing. The office quickly
sent me a Notice to Explain, which I answered. It created an investigating body
regarding my issue as they charged me with gross insubordination and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. I am seeking the help of a higher tribunal
for I believe that I was not accorded due process because no face-to-face hearing
happened. Am I right?
Sincerely yours,
Tommy

Dear Tommy,
It would be best for you to visit the case of Disciplinary Board, Land Transportation Office,
et al. vs. Mercedita E. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 224395, July 3, 2017), penned by Associate
Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe, that clearly stated:

“‘The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic requirement of notice
and a real opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, as in the case at bar,
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.’ This was extensively discussed in Vivo v.
Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation as follows:

The observance of fairness in the conduct of any investigation is at the very heart of
procedural due process. The essence of due process is to be heard, and, 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.
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. Ledesma v. Court Appeals [(565 Phil. 731, 740
[2007])] elaborates on the well-established meaning of due process in administrative
proceedings in this wise:

xxx 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

In the above-cited jurisprudence, with facts that are similar to your situation, a Show Cause
Memorandum was issued to the respondent. The same was construed sufficient to cover
the due process requirements under the law, as discussed above. Ultimately, the
respondent’s cause was remanded to the agency concerned for proper administrative
proceedings.

Succinctly, the same circumstance may attend your situation. We deem it best that you
personally consult a lawyer for the propriety of your responses for further administrative
proceedings you shall face.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you
have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are
changed or elaborated.

We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.