Rivera vs CSC

Facts: P: George Rivera, Manager of Corporate Banking of LBP (Land Bank of Phil) R: Civil Service Commission and LBP An administrative case was filed against P on the basis of affidavits of William Lao and Jesus Perez (the Marketing Manager of Wynner.) The latter had a pending loan application with LBP and so the former said that he could facilitate the processing, approval and release of loan if he would be given a 10% commission. Thus P was filed with grave misconduct, dishonesty, as well as on the basis of AntiGraft, etc. He was held guity by LBP, after a formal investigation , of grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service in accepting employment from a client of the bank and thereby receiving salaries and allowances. Appeal: Modified by Merit System Protection Board (MSBP) Appeal: CSC finds him guilty MOR: CSC denied

People vs Medenilla
Facts: R: Loreto Medenilla, filed a case in violation of the Dangerous Drug Act Buy bust operation There were various factual claims on what really happened; SPO2 Cabral and herein R having different claims on the actual happenings.

Issue: WON accused-appellant was denied due process Ruling: It was seen that the testimonies of accusedappellant and Wilfredo de Jesus are not convincing since they are replete with numerous inconsistencies and improbabilities thus rendering questionable the veracity of their claims. It was also ruled that accused-appellant was not denied due process though R claimed that the judgment of the judge was biased. The judge asked numerous questions to clarify the various claims.

Issue: WON Rivera was denied due process Ruling: Rivera was denied due process when Hon. Thelma P. Gaminde, who earlier participated in her capacity as the Board Chairman of the MSPB when the latter had taken action on LBP's motion for reconsideration, also took part, this time as a CSC Commissioner, in the resolution of petitioner's motion for reconsideration with the CSC. Thus, Commissioner Gaminade is inhibited from participating in resolving Riveras appeal to CSC to be able to give full meaning and consequence to a fundamental aspect of due process.

We fail to see how this single noted instance of questioning can justify a claim that the trial judge was biased. We have exhaustively examined the transcript of stenographic notes and determined that the trial judge was more than equitable in presiding over the hearings of this case. Moreover, a judge is not prohibited from propounding clarificatory questions on a witness if the purpose of which is to arrive at a proper and just determination of the case.

then reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise, there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. The decision of the reviewing officer would be a biased view

Cruz vs CSC
Facts: P: Gilda Cruz and Zenaida C. Paitim, the former being a co-employee of the latter; the latter took the Career Service examination for the former. P claims that there she is denied due process of law as well as the CSC has no jurisdiction to try the case given that the case involves not a case filed by a private individual against the government employee.

David vs Aquizilian
Facts:
Petition for certiorari for a writ of preliminary injunction to set aside decision of Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) presided by judge Gregorio Aquizilian P: Felimon David = landholder Felomeno and Ricardo Jugar, brothers, filed a petition for reinstatement in the CAR; they were installed as shared tenants by P over separate portions of latters landholding with sharing agreement being 50-50% net produce Sometime middle of 1973, R were no longer allowed to continue their cultivation because P prohibited so = DAR intervened but P refused to reinstate them as he claims that Jugar brothers voluntarily surrendered the lands. After the issues were joined, R judge three months later, without conducting any hearing rendered judgment for private respondents and declared them as owners of said land

Issue: WON P was denied due process when CSC acted as investigator, complainant prosecutor and judge Ruling: There was due process. First, CSC can take cognizance of the case as shown by Sec. 28 Rule XIV of the omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations where they can take cognizance over any irregularities and anomalies connected to the examinations. Further, the petitioners were properly informed of the charges. As well as they submitted an answer thus giving them the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard.

Issue: WON P was denied due process and the opportunity to be heard when R judge did not conduct any hearing in the case prior to the issuance of the challenged decision Ruling: No due process as P was not given the opportunity to be heard. Thus, rendering the judges decision to be null and void. It has been held that a final and executory judgement may be set aside with a view to the renewal of the litigation when the judgement is void for lack of due process of law. Requisites for procedural due process in civil cases: "(1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it; (2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceeding; (3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4) judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing."
Thus, it is well-settled rule that "no one shall be personally bound until he has had a day in court", by which is meant, until he has been duly cited to appear, and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such citation and opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is a judicial usurpation and oppression, and can never be upheld where justice is justly administered

Petitioners' contention that they were denied due process of law by the fact that the CSC acted as investigator, complainant, prosecutor and judge, all at the same time against the petitioners is untenable. The CA correctly explained that the CSC is mandated to hear and decide administrative case instituted by it or instituted before it directly or on appeal including actions of its officers and the agencies pursuant to Admin Code

Aniag vs COMELEC
Facts: P: Congressman Francisco Aniag, Jr. (Bulacan) = requested by Mr. Serapio Taccad, Sergeant-at-Arms of HR to return the 2 firearms issued by HR pursuant to the Gun Ban P then instructed his driver, Ernesto Arellano, to pick up the firearms from Ps house and return them to the Congress. At 5 PM, PNP set up a checkpoint there Arellano was flagged and the car was searched and PNP therein found the firearms neatly packed in their gun cases and placed in a bag n the trunk of the car. Police referred Arellanos case to the Office of the City Prosecutor for Inquest. Referral did not include P as among those charged with an election offense. P questions the constitutionality of Reso by Comelec.

among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Nor was he subjected by the City Prosecutor to a preliminary investigation for such offense. The non-disclosure by the City Prosecutor to the petitioner that he was a respondent in the preliminary investigation is violative of due process which requires that the procedure established by law should be obeyed. and that petitioner in fact submitted a sworn letter of explanation regarding the incident. This does not satisfy the requirement of due process the essence of which is the reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of his defense.

Issue: WON P can be validly prosecuted in violation of the Gun Ban for instructing his driver to return to HR the 2 firearms issued to him on the basis of the evidence gathered from the warrantless search of his car. WON P was denied the opportunity to be heard, thus violating his right to due process, when P was not among those charged by the PNP with violation of the Omnibus Election Code nor was he subjected by the City Prosecutor to a preliminary investigation. Ruling: There was no probable cause to lead one to search the vehicle of herein P driven by Arellano. Absent such justifying circumstances specifically pointing to the culpability of petitioner and Arellano, the search could not be valid. The action then of the policemen unreasonably intruded into petitioner's privacy and the security of his property, in violation of Sec. 2, Art. III, of the Constitution. Consequently, the firearms obtained in violation of petitioner's right against warrantless search cannot be admitted for any purpose in any proceeding. Also, the manner by which COMELEC proceeded against P runs counter to the due process clause of the Consti. The facts show that petitioner was not

Due process guarantees the observance of both substantive and procedural rights, whatever the source of such rights, be it the Constitution itself or only a statute or a rule of court. While the right to preliminary investigation is statutory rather than constitutional in its fundamental, since it has in fact been established by statute, it is a component part of due process in criminal justice.

Eastern Broadcasting vs Dans

Facts: P: Eastern Broadcasting Corporation (DYRE) files a petition to compel R to allow the reopening of Radio Station DYRE which had been summarily closed on the grounds of national security. P contends it was denied due process when it was closed on mere allegation that the radio station was used to incite people to sedition. -> shift of radio station towards coverage of public events and airing of programs geared towards public affairs 1. No hearing; 2. No proof was submitted to establish factual basis for closure; 3. P was not informed beforehand; 4. No action was taken by R to entertain a motion. Case rendered moot and academic when DYRE was sold to Manuel Pastrana.

Bautista vs CA
Facts: Petition for review seeking reversal of decision of CA P: Natividad Bautista, Clemendte Bautista and Socorro Angeles = files complaint for quieting of title R: Manila papermills Intnl, Inc. P contends that they have been in actual and uninterrupted possession of land and the land covered was in a reinstituted title in name of R and such title was fake = thus they prayed that they be declared absolute owners of land in dispute. In course of trial, P filed an urgent Motion for Postponement to cancel the hearing on ground that Atty. Macraeg was in US TC denied motion and considered them as having waived their presentation of evidence. P contends that they were denied due process given the fact that they were denied the chance to present evidence even after explaining their counsels failure to attend the scheduled hearing; further contending that the judge was biased

Issue: WON P was denied due process given the aforementioned claims cited. Ruling: Rendered moot and academic but it was ruled that broadcast stations also deserve the special protection given to all forms of media by the due process and freedom of expression clauses of the Constitution. Ps motion to withdraw or dismiss the petition is hereby Granted.

Issue: WON P was denied due process when they were not given the chance to present their evidence on the account of the denial of their motion for postponement. Ruling: There was due process. The grant of a motion for or postponement is not a matter of right. It is addressed to the sound discretion of the court. That the absence of a party during trial constitutes a waiver of his right to present evidence and crossexamine the opponent's witnesses is firmly supported by jurisprudence. Petition denied. Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process. Due process is satisfied as long as the party is accorded an opportunity to be heard. If it is not availed of, it is deemed waived or forfeited without violating the constitutional guarantee

Mariveles Shipyard vs CA
Facts: P: Mariveles Shipyard Corp. = terminates contract with the agency as it found the services of the assigned guards to be unsatisfactory R: security guards who are under the Longest Force Investigation and Security Agency Inc. P seeks to nullify decision of NLRC which affirmed Labor Arbiters decision findng P jointly and severally liable with the agency for underpayment of wages and overtime pay due to latters security guards. P denied liability arguing that it had religiously and promptly paid compensation as stipulated under the contract with the security agency. CA dismissed outright Ps petition and MoR due to a defective certificate of non-forum shopping and non-submission of required documents. P further claims that it was denied due process as Arbiter did not observe mandatory language of Sec 5 (b) of NLRC New Rules of Procedure which provides that if Labor Arbiter finds that there is no necessity of further hearing after submission of position papers, he shall inform the parties thereof.

Suntay vs People
Facts: P: Emilio Suntay Y Aguinaldo = charged with seduction by Alicia Nublas father (16 yrs), Dr. Antonio Nubla. Before Alicia subscribed and swore to the complaint, but after the preliminary investigation has been conducted, P applied and was granted a passport by DFA and then left for San Francisco, USA Sec. of DFA cabled Ambassador of US instructing him to order Consul Gen. to cancel passport issued to P to compel him to return to Phil and face criminal charges against him. P contends that such order is illegal bec. Court can take away discretionary power of Sec and order the cancellation of passport. Further, P contends that such discretion of the Sec. to cancel passports may only be exercised until after hearing bec. The right to travel is a personal liberty granted under the Consti. And cant be deprived of from P without due process of law.

Issue: WON P was denied due process when Labor Arbiter failed to have the case tried on the merits. Ruling: There was due process where parties were given opportunity to submit their position papers. Also, P was rendered jointly and severally liable but may not prejudice its claims for reimbursement. It is well taken that though wages are therein stipulated in the contract, contracts are therein deemed void when contrary to law, in herein case, the contract stipulates a wage way below the minimum wage prescribed by law. Petition denied. Not all cases require a trial-type hearing. The requirement of due process in labor cases before a Labor Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would prove their respective claims, in the event the Labor Arbiter determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or that such hearing was not necessary

Issue: WON P was denied due process when the Sec. of DFA exercised is discretion in cancelling the passport without availing P of a prior hearing. Ruling: There was due process. Where the holder of a passport is facing a criminal charge in our courts and left the country to evade criminal prosecution, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in the exercise of his discretion to revoke a passport already issued, cannot be held to have acted whimsically or capriciously in withdrawing and cancelling such passport. Petition denied.

Due process does not necessarily mean or require a hearing. When discretion is exercised by an officer vested with it upon are undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious criminal charge against the passport holder hearing may be dispensed with by such officer as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his passport; lack of such hearing does not violate the due process law clause of the Constitution; and the exercise of the discretion vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical and capricious because of the absence of such hearing.

Co vs Barbers
Facts: P: Governor Josie Castillo-Co of Quirino R: Quirino Congressman Junie Cua R filed case against P together with Provincial Engineer Virgilio Ringor before Office of Ombudsman alleging that in the course of investigation in aid of legislation, the HR Committee on Good Government chaired by R uncovered irregularities in the purchase of heavy equipment by P and the Provincial Engineer. As such, there was the purchase of reconditioned instead of brand new equipments of which were overpriced, didnt undergo public bidding nor inspection. Further, there was an advance payment prior to delivery in violation of Sec 338 of LGC and an attempt to cover such. A week after the complaint the accused herein were placed under preventive suspension for a period of 6 months -> MoR denied P raises the claims that only the Deputy Ombudsman was authorized to sign the preventive suspension; further he was deprived of due process and such was excessive

Santiago vs Vasquez
Facts: P: Miriam Defensor Santiago R: Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez, Sandiganbayan, etc. A present special civil action called: Motion to Restrain the Sandiganbayan from Enforcing its Hold Departure Order with Prayer for the Issuance of TRO and/or Preliminary Injunction, with Motion to Set Pending Incident to Hearing P herein was filed a criminal case in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act An order of arrest was issued against P with bail for release fixed at 15k P filed Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Acceptance and Cash Bail Bond wherein she considers as having placed herself under the jurisdiction of the court and seeks leave due to the extensive physical injuries she has suffered as a result of the vehicular collision, as well as acceptance of the recommended bail. -> Thus Sandiganbayan issued a resolution authorizing P to post cash bond for her provisional liberty and without need for physical appearance until June 5, 1991 Yet herein R filed a manifestation with S saying that P appeared in his office Thus, S issued a reso. Setting arraignment in an earlier date; P cancels bond-> P filed motion for certiorari and prohibition with prelim injunction on the ground that the moving of date afforded her little opportunity to avail herself of any remedial right to meet such contingency. -> Denied S issues Hold departure order due to express statement of P to leave the country for further studies abroad. P argues that hold departure order violates her right to due process, right to travel and freedom of speech. And that S never acquired jurisdiction over her person, as well as the hold departure order contravenes the TRO issued by the court from enjoining S from proceeding with the criminal case

Issue: WON P was denied due process wherein P claims she was not afforded the opportunity to controvert the evidence against her before the order of suspension was issued. Ruling: There was due process. A preventive suspension

can be decreed on an official under investigation after charges are brought and even before the charges are heard since the same is not in the nature of penalty but merely a preliminary step in an admin. Investigation. If
after such investigation, the person investigated is found guilty, he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. The immediate issuance of such order is required in order to prevent the subject of the suspension from committing further irregularities.

Issue: WON P was denied due process when the hold departure was issued without notice and hearing Ruling: After filing of complaint and a warrant of arrest has been issued by RTC and accused either voluntarily submitted himself or was duly arrested the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Such voluntary appearance is accomplished by pleadings of merit or by filing bail. In the case at bar, this was done so by Ps filing of the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion.. as well as the cancelling of cash bon, etc. The hold departure order does not violate Ps right to due process as the hold departure order is but

Mejia vs Pamaran
Facts: P: Aurora Mejia R: Hon. Manuel Pamaran; etc. The instant petition for review of the decision of the Sandiganbayan had its roots from 6 ejectment cases filed by Eusebio Lu against Endangan, Meimban, Bontia, Antillon, Mabalot and Villamor. -> case was decided against defendants. In appeal, 5 of the defendants-appellants entered into a compromise agreement with Lu wherein they would receive 5k from Lu in consideration of which appellants would vacate the premises and remove their houses within 60 days, failing to do so would authorize Lu to demolish their houses. Josefina Meimban, on the other hand, did not join in the compromise agreement and instead sought the assistance from Citizens Legal Assistance Office (CLAO) Atty. Espano herein helped her and instructed her to find out the status of the case Upon return to the court, Meimban knew P and constantly reiterated to Meimban in various instances her desire to help them get a favourable judgement if they would only give her 1k each to give as a gift to the judge. Eventually, thinking that they had a chance with the case, 2 of the other appellants herein cancelled the Compromise Agreement with Lu but still nonetheless resulting to a decision in favour of Lu; hence the filing of the charges against Mejia in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practice Act P, with disregard to her other claims, most importantly raises the argument that the Sandiganbayan proceedings violates her right to equal protection because appeal as a matter of right became minimized into a mere matter of discretion appeal likewise was shrunk and limited only to questions of law and there is only one chance to appeal conviction, by certiorari to the SC instead of two traditional chances.

an exercise of respondent courts inherent power to preserve and maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person of the accused.
Though P claims that there is no justification for the impairment of her constitutional right to travel, the fact that she has posted bail, and such was legally valid and recognized by the courts, necessarily places her under the assumption of the obligation that she is amenable at all times to the orders and process of the court. Therefore, she may be legally prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the case.

"A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail bond. . . "The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction on his right to travel.

Issue: WON P was denied due process in such criminal proceedings when then Sandiganbayan who took cognizance of the case has neither been created as mandated by the Constitution nor constituted as conceived by the decree for its creation. Ruling: P was afforded the procedural due process in a criminal proceeding. Accused herein is found guilty of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The Sandiganbayan was created during martial Law in the valid exercise of the then late Pres. Marcos legislative powers. Clearly, it is not also an ex post facto law. The elements for Ant-Graft were also met; these are: 1.It must be committed by 1)a public officer; 2)who requested and who received a gift, present, etc.; 3)the gift, present, etc. was for the benefit of said public officer; 4)said public officer requested and/or received the gift, present, etc. in connection with a contract or transaction with the government; and 5)said officer has the right to intervene in such contract or transaction in his/her official capacity under the law.

Ang Tibay vs CIR

Facts: P: Ang Tibay, with Toribo Teodoro as head = leather soles R: 1) National Labor Union, Inc. files for new trial and claims that Toribo Teodoro made the excuse of a shortage of leather soles to exclude 89 laborers as a result of their affiliation with the union 2) Court of Industrial Relations who files MoR = CIR as a special court whose functions are stated in CA 103. It is more than an administrative bard than a part of the integrated judicial system of the nation. Its jurisdiction is over the entire Phil. To investigate decide, settle, etc. disputes between/and/or affecting employers & employees, etc. Thus the mingling of executive and judicial functions

Issue: WON CIR, though said to be free from the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, entirely ignore or disregard the fundamental essential requirements of due process in trials and investigation of an administrative character. Ruling: In the light of the foregoing fundamental principles, it is sufficient to observe here that, except as to the alleged agreement between the Ang Tibay and the National Workers' Brotherhood (appendix A), the record is barren and does not satisfy the thirst for a factual basis upon which to predicate, in a rational way, a conclusion of law.

. . . In criminal proceedings then, due process is satisfied if the accused is 'informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he has to meet, with his conviction being made to rest on evidence that is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity for him to rebut it and the sentence being imposed in accordance with a valid law. It is assumed, of course, that the court that rendered the decision is one of competent jurisdiction if an accused has been heard in a court of competent jurisdiction, and proceeded against under the orderly processes of law, and only punished after inquiry and investigation, upon notice to him, with an opportunity to be heard, and a judgment awarded within the authority of a constitutional law, then he has had due process of law.'

REQUIREMENTS in ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS: 1. There must be a hearing where the parties interested are given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence to support their claim; 2. The evidence must be substantial*; 3. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented and not simply based on the views of the parties.

Secretary of Justice vs Lantion

Facts: P: Secretary of Justice R: Mark B. Jimenez = probable extraditee under RP-US Extradition Treaty who contends that he be furnished a copy of the US government request for his extradition and its supporting documents while he is still under evaluation Petition for an Urgent MoR which seeks to reverse the decision of the judges by a vote of 9-6 which decided to furnish R copies of extradition request and its supporting papers and to grant him reasonable time to file his comment; for acc. To P such demand notice is equivalent to a notice to flee. P claims that there is a substantial difference bet. An evaluation process antecedent to the filing of an extradition petition in court and a preliminary investigation. P further claims that the absence of notice and hearing during the evaluation process will not result in a denial of fundamental fairness

operation all the rights of an accused as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. The process of extradition does not involve the determination of the guilt or innocence of an accused. His guilt or innocence will be adjudged in the court of the state where he will be extradited. Thus, the constitutional

rights that are only relevant to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused cannot be invoked by an extradite especially by one whose extradition papers are still undergoing.
Considering that in the case at bar, the extradition proceeding is only at its evaluation stage, the nature of the right being claimed by the private respondent is nebulous and the degree of prejudice he will allegedly suffer is weak, we accord greater weight to the interests espoused by the government thru the petitioner Secretary of Justice. . . . Both the RP-US Extradition Treaty and P.D. No. 1069 clearly provide that private respondent may be provisionally arrested only pending receipt of the request for extradition. It is evident from the above provision that a warrant of arrest for the temporary detention of the accused pending the extradition hearing may only be issued by the presiding judge of the extradition court upon filing of the petition for extradition. As the extradition process is still in the evaluation stage of pertinent documents and there is no certainty that a petition for extradition will be filed in the appropriate extradition court, the threat to private respondent's liberty is merely hypothetical.

Issue: WON private R is entitled to the due process right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process. Ruling: 1. R is bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process PD 1069 which implements RP-US Extradition treaty provides the time when an extradite shall be furnished a copy of the petition for extradition as well as its supporting papers after filing of the petition for extradition in the extradition court; Also, there is no provision in RP-US Extradtion Treaty and PD 1069 which provides such extradite such right while still undergoing evaluation Since such treaties should be interpreted in the light of their intent; it can be seen that such treaty calls for an interpretation that will minimize if not prevent the escape of the extradites from long arm of the law An extradition proceeding is sui generis. It is not a criminal proceeding which will call into

a.

b.

c.

The extraditee's right to know is momentarily withheld during the evaluation stage of the extradition process to accommodate the more compelling interest of the State to prevent escape of potential extraditees which can be precipitated by premature information of the basis of the request for his extradition.

Govt of US vs Purganan
Facts: This is a sequel to Sec. of Justice vs Lantion Jimenez was filed a case against conspiracy to defraud US, tax evasion, wire fraud, etc. In order to prevent the flight of Jimenez, the petition prayed for the ISSUANCE OF AN RDER FOR HIS IMMEDIATE ARREST pursuant to Sec. 6 of PD 1069 Jimenez expressed reservations on procedure and requested to be heard prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest; afterwards he had an alternative prayer that he be granted bail

Govt of Hongkong vs Olalia

Facts: P: Govt of Hongkong Special Administrative Region represented by DoJ R: Hon. Olalia and Juan Antonio Munoz, the latter being the potential extradite Herein is a petition for certiorari seeking to nullify the order of RTC granting Munoz the right to post bail as acc. To P there is no provision in the Consti. Granting bail to a potential extradite RP and the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong signed an Agreement for the Surrender of Accused and Convicted Persons which took effect on June 20, 1997 Munoz was charged of accepting an advantage as agent as well as offense of conspiracy to defraud. Warrants were issued against him, DoJ then received the request for the provisional arrest of P then forwarded it to NBI -> RTC > Order of Arrest -> NBI arrested and detained him. -> CA declaring arrest void -> court grants petition of DoJ to sustain the validity or Order of Arrest -> final and executory After hearing, 2 years thereafter R filed petition for bail, Judge Bernardo, Jr. denied it. -> However, herein R judge reversed the decision and granted bail worth 750K

Issue: WON Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for is arrest can be issued and WON he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings are pending. Ruling: Thus, it was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC judge to set the hearing for the issuance of the warrant of arrest when it was already evident from the Petition for Extradition itself and its supporting documents that a prima facie finding did exist and he may issue a warrant for the immediate arrest of the accused; that there is no requirement to notify and to hear the accused before the issuance of a warrant of arrest under the Constitution which requires only an examination under oath or affirmation of complainants and the witnesses they may produce; and that since accused were allowed to be heard and to present evidence at this early stage, the procedure could convert the determination of a prima facie case into a full-blown trial, which is discordant with the rationale for the entire system and anathema to the summary nature of extraditions. The Court also held that extraditee's immediate detention prior to his being heard does not violate the due process clause; that the right to bail applies only in ordinary criminal proceedings; but that in extradition proceedings, after a potential extraditee has been arrested, bail may be applied for and granted as an exception.D

Issue: Under Phil Laws and treaties, does an extradite possess the right to bail even after 2 years of being detained w/o being convicted of any crime? Ruling: In Govt vs Purganan, it was held that the constitutional provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, it is available only in criminal proceedings. However, the modern trend in PIL recognizes the UDHR and other international treaties which grants a prospective deportee the right to bail. Herein, it was argued why it should not also apply to extradition cases.

While our extradition law does not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite, however,

there is no provision prohibiting him or her from filing a motion for bail, a right to due process under the Consti.
Given that herein accused was detained for over 2 years without being convicted of a crime shows an extended period of detention which is a serious deprivation of his fundamental right to liberty. This prompted then the extradition court to grant him bail based on clear and convincing evidence. The potential extraditee must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" that he is not a flight risk and will abide with all the orders and processes of the extradition court. PETITION DISMISSED. REMANDED TO COURT

Guzman vs National University

Facts: P: Diosdado Guzman and friends R: National University P seeks relief from their schools continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enrol with the petition for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary injunction. Herein case, P were refused enrolment on basis of the fact of their participation in mass actions within the school promises which allegedly led to the detriment of their grades.

Gonzales vs NLRC
Facts: P: Lorlene Gonzales = an elementary school teacher in Ateneo de Davao Herein P were informed of complaints from two parents for her alleged use of corporal punishment to her students. She was duly furnished with the rules of procedure, informed of schedule of hearings, given the copies of affidavits. Thus, procedural due process was complied with up unto the time she was served her a notice of termination. She then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal on the ground that there was failure to establish substantial evidence as to the guilt of P on the offenses charged.

Issue: WON P was denied procedural due process in school proceedings when they were expelled from the university and therein were refused to reenrol without prior proceedings to determine the acts of the accused. Ruling: There was no due process thus R were directed to allow P to re-enroll. It was gleaned from Rs comments and memorandum that they had never conducted proceedings to determine WON Pstudents indeed participated or even led such mass actions. Further, R omitted to cite any published school rules and regulation regarding such matter. Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for in courts of justice. The proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination is not, contrary to petitioners' view, an essential part thereof.

Issue: WON P was denied substantial due process in school proceedings when there was failure on her part to confront and cross-examine her accusers upon her non-participation of the proceedings due to the refusal of the Investigative Committee to revise the rules they have laid down. Ruling: There was procedural due process but no substantial due process. Due process requires both. It can be gleaned that NLRC relied solely on the witnesses affidavits with questionable veracity, while P proved by means of affidavits, letters of petition and manifesto made by her students and co-teachers that she was a competent and dedicated teacher. Thus, ATENEO failed to prove by substantial evidence that P had inflicted corporal punishment on her students.

Requirements: (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

Ample opportunity must be afforded the employee to defend herself either personally and/or with assistance of a representative; to know the nature of her offense; and, to crossexamine and confront face to face the witnesses against her. Likewise, due process requires that the decision must be based on established facts and on a sound legal foundation.

Ateneo vs Capulong
Facts: P: Ateneo De Manila University R: Students Mendoza, montecillo, abas, sabban, etc. Hazing as a requisite to membership of the Aquila Legis fraternity in Ateneo Law -> resulted to the death of Leonardo Villa and physical injuries on Bievenido Marquez Petitioner Dean Cynthia Del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee -> gave the students 24 hours to file their answers but instead requested copies of the charges and pertinent documents and affidavits through their respective counsels. Eventually they submitted their reply after they were given the extension -> they were then sent notices and quoted therein was the fact that they violated Rule 3 of the Rules on Discipline contained in the Law School Catalogue -> hearing = proceedings were summary in nature = found GUILTY and were dismissed R students filed petition alleging that there was lack of due process in their dismissal = R judge ordered P to reinstate students Thus, special civil action for certiorari

Issue: WON P was denied the procedural due process in school proceedings Ruling: There was due process. Requirements, reiterated are: "(1)the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case." They were given notice, informed in writing and Rule 3 was quoted; they were given time to adduce their evidence. All requisites satisfied.