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.

"x x x.

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.15 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,16 and
technical rules of procedure are not strictly applied. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals17 elaborates on the well-established meaning of due process in
administrative proceedings in this wise:

x x x 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.18 The petitioner actively participated in the entire course of the investigation and hearings conducted by PAGCOR. He received the letter from Ela apprising him of his being administratively charged for several
offenses, and directing him to submit an explanation in writing. He was
later on properly summoned to appear before the CIU, which conducted its
proceedings in his own residence upon his request. During the administrative
inquiry, the CIU served him a copy of the memorandum of charges, which
detailed the accusations against him and specified the acts and omissions
constituting his alleged offenses. He was also given the opportunity to
appear before the Adjudication Committee to answer clarificatory questions.
Lastly, he was informed through a memorandum of the decision of the
Board of Directors dismissing him from the service.

In contrast, the petitioner could not dispute the observance of his right to due process by PAGCOR as set forth herein. He made no credible showing of the supposed violation of his right to due process. He was heard through the written statement he submitted in response to the memorandum of the charges against him. He actively participated in the administrative inquiry conducted by the CIU at his own residence. He was afforded the opportunity to clarify his position in the proceedings before the Adjudication Committee. He was also able to appeal the adverse decision to dismiss him from the service to the CSC.

There is also no question that PAGCOR complied with the twin-notice requirement prior to the termination of his employment, the first notice being made through Ela’s letter dated February 21, 2002 informing him on his being administratively charged for the offenses mentioned, and the second being through the letter dated May 15, 2002 advising him that PAGCOR’s Board of Directors had resolved to dismiss him from the service. It is settled that there is no denial of procedural due process where the opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is accorded.19  As the CA found, and correctly so, the petitioner’s pleadings explicitly admitted that his dismissal had been effected through board resolutions.

That he was not furnished copies of the board resolutions did not negate the existence of the resolutions, and did not invalidate the contents of the board resolutions. It is beyond question that he was duly informed of the subject-matter of the board resolutions. Consequently, the CSC’s conclusion that his dismissal had been unauthorized was unfounded. In any case, even assuming for the sake of argument that there was no board resolution approving his dismissal, the lapse did not render his dismissal illegal but unauthorized. However, as the CA succinctly put it, an unauthorized act could be the subject of ratification.20

x x x."


See -  http://www.scribd.com/doc/189787903/187854
G.R. No. 187854. November 12, 2013
Ray Peter O. vivo Vs. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation