Banco Espanol vs Palanca

Judicial Due Process Requisites

Engracio Palanca was indebted to El Banco and he had his parcel of
land as security to his debt. His debt amounted to P218,294.10. His
property is worth 75k more than what he owe. Due to the failure of
Engracio to make his payments, El Banco executed an instrument to
mortgage Engracios property. Engracio however left for China and
he never returned til he died. Since Engracio is a non resident El
Banco has to notify Engracio about their intent to sue him by means
of publication using a newspaper. The lower court further orderdd the
clerk of court to furnish Engracio a copy and that itd be sent to
Amoy, China. The court eventually granted El Banco petition to
execute Engracios property. 7 years thereafter, Vicente surfaced on
behalf of Engracio as his administrator to petition for the annulment
of the ruling. Vicente averred that there had been no due process as
Engracio never received the summons.
ISSUE: Whether or not due process was not observed.
HELD: The SC ruled against Palanca. The SC ruled that the
requisites for judicial due process had been met. The requisites are;
1.

There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial

power to hear and decide the matter before it.

2.

Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the

defendant or over the property subject of the proceedings.

3.

The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard.

4.

Judgment must be rendered only after lawful hearing.

MALIKSI VS. COMELEC - March 12, 2013
During the 2010 Elections, the Municipal Board of Canvassers
proclaimed Saquilayan the winner for the position of Mayor of Imus,
Cavite. Maliksi, the candidate who garnered the second highest
number of votes, brought an election protest in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Imus, Cavite alleging that there were irregularities in
the counting of votes in 209 clustered precincts. Subsequently, the
RTC held a revision of the votes, and, based on the results of the
revision, declared Maliksi as the duly elected Mayor of Imus
commanding Saquilayan to cease and desist from performing the
functions of said office. Saquilayan appealed to the COMELEC. In
the meanwhile, the RTC granted Maliksis motion for execution
pending appeal, and Maliksi was then installed as Mayor.
In resolving the appeal, the COMELEC First Division,
without giving notice to the parties, decided to recount the ballots
through the use of the printouts of the ballot images from the CF
cards. Thus, it issued an order dated March 28, 2012 requiring
Saquilayan to deposit the amount necessary to defray the expenses
for the decryption and printing of the ballot images.
Later, it issued another order dated April 17, 2012 for Saquilayan to
augment his cash deposit.
On August 15, 2012, the First Division issued a resolution
nullifying the RTCs decision and declaring Saquilayan as the duly
elected Mayor.
Maliksi filed a motion for reconsideration, alleging that he
had been denied his right to due process because he had not been
notified of the decryption proceedings. He argued that the resort to
the printouts of the ballot images, which were secondary evidence,
had been unwarranted because there was no proof that the integrity of
the paper ballots had not been preserved.
On September 14, 2012, the COMELEC En Banc resolved
to deny Maliksis motion for reconsideration.
Maliksi then came to the Court via petition for certiorari,
reiterating his objections to the decryption, printing, and examination
of the ballot images without prior notice to him, and to the use of the
printouts of the ballot images in the recount proceedings conducted
by the First Division.
In the decision promulgated on March 12, 2013, the Court,
by a vote of 8-7, dismissed Maliksis petition for certiorari. The
Court concluded that Maliksi had not been denied due process
because: (a) he had received notices of the decryption, printing, and
examination of the ballot images by the First Division referring to
the orders of the First Division directing Saquilayan to post and
augment the cash deposits for the decryption and printing of the
ballot images; and (b) he had been able to raise his objections to the
decryption in his motion for reconsideration. The Court then
pronounced that the First Division did not abuse its discretion in
deciding to use the ballot images instead of the paper ballots,
explaining that the printouts of the ballot images were not secondary

images, but considered original documents with the same evidentiary

value as the official ballots under the Rule on Electronic Evidence;
and that the First Divisions finding that the ballots and the ballot
boxes had been tampered had been fully established by the large
number of cases of double-shading discovered during the revision.
Hence, Maliksi filed the petition before the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: W/O Maliksi was deprived of due process when the
COMELEC First Division ordered on appeal the decryption, printing,
and examination of the ballot images in the CF cards.
HELD: The petition was dismissed. Maliksi alleged that he was
denied due process when the COMELEC First Division directed the
decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images in the CF
cards for the first time on appeal without notice to him, thus
depriving him of his right to be present and observe the decryption
proceedings.
The records also showed that Maliksi was aware of the
decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot images by the
COMELEC First Division. The COMELEC First Division issued an
Order dated 28 March 2012 directing Saquilayan to deposit the
required amount for expenses for the supplies, honoraria, and fee for
the decryption of the CF cards, and a copy of the Order was
personally delivered to Maliksis counsel. Maliksis counsel was
likewise given a copy of Saquilayans Manifestation of Compliance
with the 28 March 2012 Order. In an Order dated 17 April 2012, the
COMELEC First Division directed Saquilayan to deposit an
additional amount for expenses for the printing of additional ballot
images from four clustered precincts, and a copy of the Order was
again personally delivered to Maliksis counsel. The decryption took
weeks to finish.
Clearly, Maliksi was not denied due process. He received
notices of the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot
images by the COMELEC First Division. In addition, Maliksi raised
his objections to the decryption in his motion for reconsideration
before the COMELEC En Banc. The Court has ruled:
x x x. The essence of due process, we have consistently held,
is simply the opportunity to be heard; as applied to
administrative proceedings, due process is the opportunity to
explain ones side or the opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A
formal or trial-type hearing is not at all times and in all
instances essential. The requirement is satisfied where the
parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to
explain their side of the controversy at hand. x x x.
There is no denial of due process where there is opportunity
to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings. It is settled
that opportunity to be heard does not only mean oral arguments in
court but also written arguments through pleadings. Thus, the fact
that a party was heard on his motion for reconsideration negates any
violation of the right to due process. The Court has ruled that denial
of due process cannot be invoked where a party was given the chance
to be heard on his motion for reconsideration.
MALIKSI VS. COMELEC - April 11, 2013
In Maliksis Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration he argued
that the Supreme Court en banc gravely erred in dismissing the
instant petition despite a clear violation of petitioners constitutional
right to due process of law considering that decryption, printing and
examination of the digital images of the ballots, which is the basis for
the assailed 14 September 2012 resolution of the public respondent,
which in turn affirmed the 15 August 2012 resolution of the
COMELEC First Division, were done inconspicuously upon a motu
proprio directive of the COMELEC First Division sans any notice to
the petitioner, and for the first time on appeal.
HELD: The Court grants Maliksis Extremely Urgent Motion for
Reconsideration, and reverses the decision promulgated on March 12,
2013 on the ground that the First Division of the COMELEC denied
to him the right to due process by failing to give due notice on the
decryption and printing of the ballot images. Consequently, the Court
annuls the recount proceedings conducted by the First Division with
the use of the printouts of the ballot images.
It bears stressing at the outset that the First Division should
not have conducted the assailed recount proceedings because it was
then exercising appellate jurisdiction as to which no existing rule of
procedure allowed it to conduct a recount in the first instance. The
recount proceedings authorized under Section 6, Rule 15 of
COMELEC Resolution No. 8804, as amended, are to be conducted
by the COMELEC Divisions only in the exercise of their exclusive
original jurisdiction over all election protests involving elective
regional (the autonomous regions), provincial and city officials.
As we see it, the First Division arbitrarily arrogated unto
itself the conduct of the recount proceedings, contrary to the regular
procedure of remanding the protest to the RTC and directing the
reconstitution of the Revision Committee for the decryption and

printing of the picture images and the revision of the ballots on the
basis thereof. Quite unexpectedly, the COMELEC En Banc upheld
the First Divisions unwarranted deviation from the standard
procedures by invoking the COMELECs power to take such
measures as [the Presiding Commissioner] may deem proper, and
even citing the Courts minute resolution in Alliance of Barangay
Concerns (ABC) Party-List v. Commission on Elections5 to the
effect that the COMELEC has the power to adopt procedures that
will ensure the speedy resolution of its cases. The Court will not
interfere with its exercise of this prerogative so long as the parties are
amply heard on their opposing claims.
Based on the pronouncement in Alliance of Barangay
Concerns (ABC) v. Commission on Elections, the power of the
COMELEC to adopt procedures that will ensure the speedy
resolution of its cases should still be exercised only after giving to all
the parties the opportunity to be heard on their opposing claims. The
parties right to be heard upon adversarial issues and matters is never
to be waived or sacrificed, or to be treated so lightly because of the
possibility of the substantial prejudice to be thereby caused to the
parties, or to any of them. Thus, the COMELEC En Banc should not
have upheld the First Divisions deviation from the regular procedure
in the guise of speedily resolving the election protest, in view of its
failure to provide the parties with notice of its proceedings and an
opportunity to be heard, the most basic requirements of due process.
Marcos vs Sandiganbayan

Due Process
Imelda was charged together with Jose Dans for Graft
& Corruption for a dubious transaction done in 1984
while they were officers transacting business with the
Light Railway Transit. The case was raffled to the
1 Division of the Sandiganbayan. The division was
headed by Justice Garchitorena with J Balajadia and
J Atienza as associate justices. No decision was
reached by the division by reason of Atienzas dissent
in favor of Imeldas innocence. Garchitorena then
summoned a special division of the SB to include JJ
Amores and Cipriano as additional members. Amores
then asked Garchitorena to be given 15 days to send
in his manifestation. On the date of Amores request,
Garchitorena received manifestation from J Balajadia
stating that he agrees with J Rosario who further
agrees with J Atienza. Garchitorena then issued a
special order to immediately dissolve the special
division and have the issue be raised to the SB en
banc for it would already be pointless to wait for
Amores manifestation granted that a majority has
already decided on Imeldas favor. The SB en banc
ruled against Imelda.
ISSUE: Whether or not due process has been
observed.
HELD: The SC ruled that the ruling of the SB is bereft
of merit as there was no strong showing of Imeldas
guilt. The SC further emphasized that Imelda was
deprived of due process by reason of Garchitorena
not waiting for Amores manifestation. Such
procedural
flaws
committed
by
respondent
Sandiganbayan are fatal to the validity of its decision
convicting petitioner. Garchitorena had already
created the Special Division of five (5) justices in view
of the lack of unanimity of the three (3) justices in the
First Division. At that stage, petitioner had a vested
right to be heard by the five (5) justices, especially the
new justices in the persons of Justices Amores and
del Rosario who may have a different view of the
cases against her. At that point, Presiding Justice
Garchitorena and Justice Balajadia may change their
mind and agree with the original opinion of Justice
Atienza but the turnaround cannot deprive petitioner
st

of her vested right to the opinion of Justices Amores

and del Rosario. It may be true that Justice del
Rosario had already expressed his opinion during an
informal, unscheduled meeting in the unnamed
restaurant but as aforestated, that opinion is not the
opinion contemplated by law. But what is more,
petitioner was denied the opinion of Justice Amores
for before it could be given, Presiding Justice
Garchitorena dissolved the Special Division.
Delgado vs CA

Due Process
Delgado together with 3 others were charged for
estafa causing the frustration of one medical student.
Delgado was assisted by one Atty. Yco. The said
lawyer has filed for multiple postponement of trial and
one time he failed to appear in court by reason of him
being allegedly sick. No medical certificate was
furnished. The court was not impressed with such
actuation and had considered the same as Delgados
waiver of her right to trial. The lower court convicted
her and the others. She appealed before the CA and
the CA sustained the lower courts rule. Delgado later
found out that Yco is not a member of the IBP.
ISSUE: Whether or not due process was observed.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Delgado. An accused
person is entitled to be represented by a member of
the bar in a criminal case filed against her before the
Regional Trial Court. Unless she is represented by a
lawyer, there is great danger that any defense
presented in her behalf will be inadequate considering
the legal perquisites and skills needed in the court
proceedings. This would certainly be a denial of due
process.
Consulta vs People

Due Process
Consulta is charged for stealing a gold necklace worth
3.5k owned by a certain Silvestre. He was convicted
by the lower court. Consulta raised before the CA the
issue that he was not properly arraigned and that he
was represented by a non lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Consulta was denied of due
process.
HELD: The SC ruled that Consultas claim of being
misrepresented cannot be given due course. He was
assisted by two lawyers during the proceeding. In the
earlier part, he was assisted by one Atty. Jocelyn
Reyes who seemed not to be a lawyer. Granting that
she indeed is not a lawyer, her withdrawal from the
case in the earlier part of the case has cured the
defect as he was subsequently assisted by a lawyer
coming from the PAO.