a. Administrative Due Process

Motion for Reconsideration

Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. (Elenita S. Binay v. Office of the Ombudsman, 213957-58, Aug. 7, 2019)

A city enacted an ordinance classifying certain areas as agricultural lands. A landowner filed an application for exemption and an Order was issued by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, granting the exemption. Farmers of landowner’s landholdings filed an MR of the Order, which was subsequently granted by the judge, thereby revoking the first Order. However, this Order was sent to another city and not to the correct address of the landowner. The Court ruled that the landowner’s right to due process was not violated. She was still able to file her MR from the Order, albeit beyond the allowable period to file and was still given due course. While it may be true that she was prevented from filing a timely MR, it would be erroneous to conclude that she had been completely denied her opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, procedural due process means that one is given the opportunity to explain one’s side and the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, not only through verbal arguments in court but also through pleadings. When she filed her MR, she was able to completely and exhaustively present her arguments. (Espiritu v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 204964. Oct. 15, 2014)

There is no denial of the right to due process if there was an opportunity for the parties to defend their interests in due course. Petitioner had been able to file a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam before the trial court, and later elevated its case before the Court of Appeals. There is no denial of due process if a party was given an opportunity to be heard in a Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioner did not take advantage of the opportunities it was given to lead a responsive pleading. It allowed the periods it was given for the filing of pleadings to lapse. (Philippine National Construction Corporation v. Asiavest Merchant Bankers (M) Berhad, GR. No. 172301, Aug. 19, 2015)

Testimony Must Not be Based on Personal Belief

The applicant and the witness must testify on their personal knowledge, not personal belief. (Nala v. Barroso, G.R. No. 153087, Aug. 7, 2003)

Administrative Proceeding; Dead Respondent

In administrative cases, the essence of procedural due process is one’s right to be given the opportunity to be heard. The respondent must be informed of the charges and given a meaningful opportunity to answer them; a trial-type hearing is not invariably required. Administrative proceedings require that the respondent be informed of the charges and be given an opportunity to refute them. Even after judgement is rendered, due process requires that the respondent not only be informed of the judgement but also given the opportunity to seek reconsideration of that judgement. Unlike a deceased respondent, a respondent who remains in office or who has resigned or retired can still be informed of the proceedings and given an opportunity to be heard.

The reason is obvious: They are still alive. Even if they cease to hold public office, they can still be made aware of the proceedings and actively submit pleadings. However, death forecloses any opportunity to be heard. Dead respondents will never know how the proceedings will continue. They cannot submit responsive pleadings or plead innocence or beg clemency. To continue with the proceedings is a violation of the right to due process. (FloresConcepcion v. Castañeda, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2438 (Resolution), Sept. 15, 2020)

Due Process Standards in Administrative Proceedings

Due process in administrative proceedings does not necessarily require a trial type of hearing. Neither does it require an exchange of pleadings between or among the parties. Due process is satisfied if the party who is properly notified of allegations against him or her is given an opportunity to defend himself or herself against those allegations, and such defense was considered by the tribunal in arriving at its own independent conclusions. (Gutierrez v COA, GR. No. 200628, Jan. 13, 2015)

Due Process Standards in Student Disciplinary Cases

Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The proceedings may be summary. Cross-examination is not an essential part of the investigation or hearing. The required proof in a student disciplinary action, which is an administrative case, is neither proof beyond reasonable doubt nor preponderance of evidence but only substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. What is crucial is that official action must meet minimum standards of fairness to the individual, which generally encompass the right of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

A cadet facing dismissal from the military academy for misconduct has constitutionally protected private interests (life, liberty, or property); hence, disciplinary proceedings conducted within the bounds of procedural due process is a must. For that reason, the PMA is not immune from the strictures of due process. Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, the minimal requirements of the due process clause must be satisfied.

The statement that "a cadet can be compelled to surrender some civil rights and liberties in order for the Code and System to be implemented" simply pertains to what cadets have to sacrifice in order to prove that they are men or women of integrity and honor, such as the right to entertain vices and the right to freely choose what they want to say or do. In the context of disciplinary investigation, it does not contemplate a surrender of the right to due process but, at most, refers to the cadets' rights to privacy and to remain silent. (Cudia v. Superintendent of the PMA, G.R. No. 211362, Feb. 24, 2015)

Due Process in Administrative Proceedings

Seven Cardinal Rights in Administrative Proceedings [Ang Tibay v. CIR, G.R. No. 46496 (1940)]:

• The 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.
• Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts, but the tribunal MUST consider the evidence presented.
• The decision of the tribunal should be supported by something. Must be based on evidence. A decision with absolutely nothing to support it is a nullity [...].
• The evidence supporting a finding or conclusion must be “substantial” (such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion). This does not include uncorroborated hearsay or rumors.
• 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.
• The body 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.
• The body must render its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.

Note: The constitutional requirement that the judgment be in writing and promulgated is NOT APPLICABLE to administrative decisions.

Ang Tibay is used as a basis for stating that quasi-judicial tribunals should render its decision in such a manner that parties to the proceeding know the various issues involved and reasons for the decision [Serrano v. PSC, G.R. No. 24165 (1968)].

Quantum of Evidence: Substantial evidence. Involves more than a mere scintilla of evidence. Such amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion [Section 6, Rule 133, Rules of Court].

Essence of Due Process in Administrative Proceedings: Opportunity to be heard.

The essence of due process in an administrative proceeding is the opportunity to explain one’s side, whether written or verbal. This presupposes that one has been previously apprised of the accusation against him or her [Anonymous v. Radam, AM P-07-2333 (2007)].

As a general rule, notice and hearing are not essential to the validity of administrative action where the administrative body acts in the exercise of execution, administrative, or legislative functions; but where a public administrative body acts in a judicial or quasijudicial 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 [Philippine Communications Satellite v. Alcuaz, G.R. No. 84818 (1989)].

Administrative issuances which implement or enforce existing laws pursuant to a valid delegation of legislative power must be published to be effective [Republic v. Pilipinas Shell, G.R. No. 173918 (2008)].