Thursday, December 12, 2013
Any procedural defect in the proceedings taken against the petitioner was cured by his filing of the motion for reconsideration and by his appealing the adverse result to the CSC.
"x x x.
In any event, any procedural defect in the proceedings taken against
the petitioner was cured by his filing of the motion for reconsideration and
by his appealing the adverse result to the CSC. The Court held in Gonzales
v. Civil Service Commission27 that any defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and that denial
of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who was afforded
the opportunity to be heard. In Autencio v. Mañara,28 the Court observed
that defects in procedural due process may be cured when the party has been
afforded the opportunity to appeal or to seek reconsideration of the action or
ruling complained of.
The petitioner was not denied due process of law, for he was afforded
the fair and reasonable opportunity to explain his side. That, to us, was
sufficient to meet the requirements of due process.29 In Casimiro v.
Tandog,30 the Court pronounced:
The essence of procedural due process is embodied in the basic
requirement of notice and a real opportunity to be heard. In administrative proceedings, such 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 be heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural due process. In administrative proceedings, procedural due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondent’s legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in one’s favor, and to defend one’s rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged
administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality;
and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial
evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in
the records or made known to the parties affected.
x x x."