Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
V. TORRES
The PhilPhos Movement for Progress
(PMPI), a labor organization composed of
supervisory employees of the Philippine
Phosphate Fertilizer Corporation, filed a
certification election on July 7, 1989 with
the
Department
of
Labor
and
Employment. The move was not contested
by the Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer
Corporation management and in fact was
supported by a position paper submitted
to the Mediator-Arbiter on August 11,
1989. The management hailed the
creation of a supervisors union provided
that they meet all the necessary legal
requirements.
On October 13, 1989 the Mediator-Arbiter
Milado issued an order for the holding of
the elections excluding the technical,
professional and confidential employees.
Then on November15, 1989 respondent
PMPI prayed for the inclusion of technical,
professional and confidential employees.
On December 14, 1989 both parties
submitted their position papers on the
said subject matter. Mr. Milado, allowing
the membership of other employees as
stated, granted the petition of PMPI.
Petitioner then moved to have the
technical, professional and confidential
employees removed from the membership
of the PMPI on April 16, 1990 to the
Secretary of Labor and Employment and a
decision was made on August 7, 1990
dismissing the appeal and the subsequent
motion for reconsideration. Then on July 8,
1991 the Court issued a temporary
restraining order against the holding of
the certification election scheduled on July
12, 1991 pending judicial review.
Issue: Whether or not PHILPHOS was
denied due process when respondent
Mediator-Arbiter granted the amended
petition of respondent PMPI without
Held:
THE RIGHT TO HEARING AS AN ELEMENT
OF DUE PROCESS DOES NOT CALL FOR A
TRIAL TYPE HEARING. We do not see it the
way PHILPHOS does here. The essence of
due process is simply an opportunity to be
heard or, as applied to administrative
proceedings, an opportunity to explain
one's side or an opportunity to seek
areconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of. Where, as in the instant
case, petitioner PHILPHOS agreed to file its
position paper with the Mediator-Arbiter
and to consider the case submitted for
decision on the basis of the position
papers filed by the parties, there was
sufficient compliance with the requirement
of due process, as petitioner was afforded
reasonable opportunity to present its
side. Moreover, petitioner could have, if it
so desired, insisted on a hearing to
confront and examine the witnesses of the
other party. But it did not; instead, it opted
to submit its position paper with the
Mediator-Arbiter. Besides, petitioner had
all the opportunity to ventilate its
arguments in its appeal to the Secretary of
Labor.
ALONTE v. SAVELLANO
Facts: On December 5, 1996, an
information for rape was filed against
petitioners
Bayani
M.
Alonte,
an
incumbent Mayor of Bian Laguna and
Buenaventura Concepcion predicated on a
complaint filed by Juvie-Lyn Punongbayan.
On
December
13,
1996,
Punongbayan,
through
her
Juvie-lyn
counsel
Attorney
Remedios
C.
Balbin,
and
Assistant Chief State Prosecutor Leonardo
Guiab, Jr., filed with the Office of the Court
Administrator a petition for a change of
venue and to have the case transferred
and tried by any of the Regional Trial
Courts in Metro Manila.
Assistant
State
Prosecutor
Marilyn
Campomanes
then
presented,
in
sequence: (i) Punongbayans parents, who
affirmed their signatures on the affidavit
of desistance and their consent to their
daughters decision to desist from the
case,
and
(ii)
Assistant
Provincial
Prosecutor Alberto Nofuente, who attested
that the affidavit of desistance was signed
by Punongbayan and her parents in his
presence and that he was satisfied that
the same was executed freely and
voluntarily.
Finally,
Campomanes
manifested that in light of the decision of
private complainant and her parents not
to pursue the case, the State had no
further evidence against the accused to
prove the guilt of the accused. She, then,
moved for the "dismissal of the case"
against both Alonte and Concepcion.
Issue:
Was
petitioner
deprived
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS?
of
HELD:
INDISPENSABLE ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL
DUE PROCESS. It does seem to the Court
that there has been undue precipitancy in
the conduct of the proceedings.Perhaps
the problem could have well been avoided
had not the basic procedures been, to the
Court's perception taken lightly. And in this
shortcoming, looking at the records of the
case, the trial court certainly is not alone
to blame.
The
above
constitutional
and
jurisprudential
postulates,
by
now
elementary and deeply imbedded in our
own
criminal
justice
system,
are
mandatory
and
indispensable.
The
principles find universal acceptance and
are tersely expressed in the oft-quoted
statement that procedural due process
cannot possibly be met without a "law
which hears before it condemns, which
proceeds upon inquiry and renders
judgment only after trial."
ANIAG v. COMELEC
substantive
and
procedural
rights,
whatever the source of such rights, be it
the Constitution itself or only a statute or
a rule of court.
In Go v. Court of Appeals, we held that
HELD:
THE
RIGHT
TO
PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION, ALTHOUGH DOES NOT
EMANATE FROM THE CONSTITUTION IS AN
ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF CRIMINAL DUE
PROCESS.
ROMUALDEZ v. MARCOS
FACTS: