Philips F.
Lufrangco Juris Doctor 2
" In case of dissension, never dare to judge till you've heard the other side.”
-Euripidis 406 BCE
Judicial Evolution of Administrative Due Process
In the recent case which was penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe reiterates the extent of
Administrative due process as decided in the case of Disciplinary Board, Land
Transportation Office, et al. vs. Mercedita E. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 224395, July 3, 2017),
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.”
Finally, the concept of due process emanated from the decision in the landmark case
of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940), enumerated the following
“cardinal primary requirements” of procedural due process in administrative proceedings: “(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.”
It is equally well-settled, however, that the standard of due process that must be met in
proceedings before administrative tribunals allows certain latitude as long as the element of
fairness is not ignored as held intherecent casesof Maglasang v. Opie and Nation Multi
Service Labor Union v. Agcaoili.
In Perez v. Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Company, the Court opined that in
illegal dismissal cases, a formal hearing or conference becomes mandatory when requested by
the employee in writing, or substantial evidentiary disputes exists, or a company rule or practice
requires it, or when similar circumstances justify [Link] Jason v. Executive Secretary Torres, the
Court ruled that the respondent was denied due process after he was deprived of the right to a
formal investigation with the opportunity to face the witnesses against him.
