SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 2015

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA, Petitioner, v. HILARIO M. MARCO, Respondents.

“The prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments. It does not apply to
appointments made by local chief executives.

Nevertheless, the Civil Service Commission has the power to promulgate rules and regulations to
professionalize the civil service. It may issue rules and regulations prohibiting local chief executives from
making appointments during the last days of their tenure. Appointments of local chief executives must
conform to these civil service rules and regulations in order to be valid.”

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 169303, February 11, 2015

PROTECTIVE MAXIMUM SECURITY AGENCY, INC., Petitioner, v. CELSO E. FUENTES, Respondent.

The employer must always observe the employee's right to due process.

In this case, petitioner violated respondent's right to procedural due process. The two-notice requirement
was not followed. Petitioner sought to excuse itself by claiming that there was no address where the proper
notice could have been served. However, petitioner admitted before the Court of Appeals that "respondent's
last known address was given to the investigating court by Police Inspector Escartin.]"

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 172301, August 19, 2015

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ASIAVEST MERCHANT

BANKERS (M) BERHAD, Respondent.

This court has consistently held that the essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard. In other
words, there is no denial of the right to due process if there was an opportunity for the parties to defend
112
their interests in due course.

Petitioner had been able to file a Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam before the trial court, and later
elevated its case before the Court of Appeals. There is no denial of due process if a party was given an
113
opportunity to be heard in a Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioner also did not take advantage of the opportunities it was given to file a responsive pleading. It
allowed the periods it was given for the filing of pleadings to lapse.

Juriscition; question of law v. fact

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 175493, March 25, 2015

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. HEIRS OF GABRIEL Q. FERNANDEZ,1 Respondents.

Expropriation, writ of possession

EN BANC

G.R. No. 200628, January 13, 2015

MARIA THERESA G. GUTIERREZ, Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND AUDITOR NARCISA DJ
JOAQUIN, Respondents.

-Due Process

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 172961, September 07, 2015

PEDRO MENDOZA [DECEASED], SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS FEDERICO MENDOZA AND DELFIN
MENDOZA, AND JOSE GONZALES, Petitioners, v. REYNOSA VALTE, Respondent.

-free patent

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 179047, March 11, 2015

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. SUBIC BAY GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC.
AND UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents.

- jurisdiction intra-corporate agency

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 198587, January 14, 2015

SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES (SAUDIA) AND BRENDA J. BETIA, Petitioners, v. MA. JOPETTE M.
REBESENCIO, MONTASSAH B. SACAR-ADIONG, ROUEN RUTH A. CRISTOBAL AND LORAINE S.
SCHNEIDER-CRUZ, Respondents.

doctrine: Art II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[t]he State ... shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men." Contrasted with Article II, Section 1 of the
1987 Constitution's statement that "[n]o person shall ... be denied the equal protection of the laws,"
Article II, Section 14 exhorts the State to "ensure." This does not only mean that the Philippines shall not
countenance nor lend legal recognition and approbation to measures that discriminate on the basis of
one's being male or female. It imposes an obligation to actively engage in securing the fundamental
equality of men and women.

Ortigas & Company Limited Partnership v. Velasco. G.R. No. 109645. January 21, 2015.

[Administrative Law]

NPC v. Posada. G.R. No. 191945. March 11, 2015.

[Expropriation; Just Compensation]