Article III, Section 1

Procedural Due Process: Aspect of Proceedings

(62) Garcia v. Pajaro

G.R. No. 141149, July 5, 2002
Panganiban, J.

POINT OF THE CASE:

Parties who choose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges against them
cannot complain of a denial of due process. Petitioners refusal to attend the scheduled hearings, despite
due notice, was at his own peril. He therefore cannot validly claim that his right to due process was violated.

FACTS:
Petitioner Garcia was an employee was an employee at the City Treasurer’s office. He was
suspended after a formal complaint was filed against him due to unsatisfactory performance. However, he
did not honor the suspension order and even after a subpoena was issued, he did not submit himself for
investigation.
The petitioner now brought action against respondent, contending that he had no power to
discipline him and that his right to due process was violated because he was not heard during the
administrative proceedings.

ISSUE:
WON the right to due process of the petitioner was violated?

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court ruled that in an administrative proceeding, the essence of due process is
simply the opportunity to explain one’s side. So long as the parties are given the opportunity to explain
their side, the requirements of due process are satisfactorily complied with.
In the case at bar, the administrative proceedings were conducted in accordance with the procedure
set out in the 1987 Administrative Code and other pertinent laws. First, petitioner was furnished a copy of
the formal charge against him. Second, Respondent Pajaro requested the approval of the Order of
Preventive Suspension from the Bureau of Local Government Finance regional director, who approved the
Order. Third, a subpoena was issued to petitioner ordering him to testify during an investigation, but he
admittedly refused to attend the investigation.
Parties who choose not to avail themselves of the opportunity to answer charges against them
cannot complain of a denial of due process. Petitioners refusal to attend the scheduled hearings, despite
due notice, was at his own peril. He therefore cannot validly claim that his right to due process was violated.