HUBERT WEBB et. al. v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 127262 July 24, 1997
PUNO, J.:

FACTS: Petitioners were charged with the crime of rape with homicide for allegedly raping
Carmela and on the occasion thereof, killing Carmela herself and her mother, and her sister.
Petitioners filed a motion to disqualify or inhibit respondent judge due to bias and prejudice. The
instances where:
1) Respondent judge allegedly told the media that "failure of the accused to surrender
following the issuance of the warrant of arrest is an indication of guilt.”;
2) Respondent judge as told the media that the accused "should not expect the comforts
of home," pending the resolution of his motion to be committed to the custody of the
Philippine National Police at Camp Ricardo Papa, Bicutan, Paranaque.
3) During trial Webb filed an urgent Motion for Hospitalization, but was denied by the
respondent judge
4) When the star witness was presented she ‘issued an order holding that she cannot be
cross examined.
5) Despite the objection of the petitioners, respondent judge ordered an ocular inspection
of the former Webb residence in BF Homes, Paranaque to verify Gaviola's testimony
about a secret door through which she peeped to see petitioner Webb.
6) When Webb filed a motion for deposition of witnesses residing in the United States
who shall testify on his presence in the United States on the date of the commission of
the crime. Respondent judge denied the motion for the reason that petitioner Webb failed
to allege that the witnesses do not have the means to go to the place of the trial.

ISSUE: W/N respondent judge should inhibit herself from hearing Criminal Case No. 95404 on
the ground of bias and prejudice.

HELD: NO. The Bill of Rights guarantees that "No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law." A critical component of due process is a hearing before an
impartial and disinterested tribunal. However to prove bias and prejudice on the part of
respondent judge, petitioners harp on the alleged adverse and erroneous rulings of respondent
judge on their various motions. They do not sufficiently prove bias and prejudice to disqualify
respondent judge.

As a general rule, repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how erroneous and
vigorously and consistently expressed, are not a basis for disqualification of a judge on grounds
of bias and prejudice. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt
purpose, in addition to the palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or order itself.
 VINTA MARITIME CO., INC et. al. vs NATIONAL LABOR
RELATIONS COMMISSION et. al.
G.R. No. 113911 January 23, 1998
PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS: Basconcillo, private respondent, filed a complaint POEA Workers' Assistance and
Adjudication Office for illegal dismissal against petitioners. In their answer, petitioners alleged
that private respondent was dismissed for his gross negligence and incompetent performance as
chief engineer of the M/V Boracay. Despite an unopposed motion for hearing filed by private
respondent, the POEA considered the case submitted for resolution by mutual agreement of the
parties after submission of their respective position papers and supporting documents. POEA and
the NLRC both ruled in favour of the Basconcillo that he was illegally dismissed.

ISSUE: W/N there was due process on the administrative procedure of Basconcillo.

HELD: YES. The Court holds that petitioners were not denied due process. No grave abuse of
discretion was committed by Respondent Commission.

In labor cases, this Court has consistently held that due process does not necessarily
mean or require a hearing, but simply an opportunity or a right to be heard. The requirements of
due process are deemed to have been satisfied when parties are given the opportunity to submit
position papers. The holding of an adversarial trial is discretionary on the labor arbiter and the
parties cannot demand it as a matter of right. It is undeniable that petitioners were given their
chance to be heard. Their answer, position paper and supporting documents had become parts of
the records and were considered accordingly by the POEA administrator and by the Respondent
Commission in rendering their respective decisions.
 WENPHIL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND
ROBERTO MALLARE
G.R. No. 80587 February 8, 1989
GANCAYCO, J.:

FACTS: Private respondent was a crew and had an altercation with a co-employee as a result
they were suspended. The following afternoon he was dismissed from service. Thus private
respondent filed a complaint against petitioner for unfair labor practice, illegal suspension and
illegal dismissal. After submitting their respective position papers to the Labor Arbiter and as the
hearing could not be conducted due to repeated absence of counsel for respondent, the case was
submitted for resolution. It was dismissed for lack of merit. NLRC, upon appeal favoured private
respondent. Petitioner alleges that private respondent not having asked for an investigation he is
thus deemed to have waived his right to inverstigation. Petitioner avers that immediately after
the incident when private respondent was asked to see Hermosura, he was defiant and showed
that he was not interested to avail of an investigation.

ISSUE: W/N there was due process on

HELD: NO. The failure of petitioner to give private respondent the benefit of a hearing before he
was dismissed constitutes an infringement of his constitutional right to due process of law and
equal protection of the laws. The standards of due process in judicial as well as administrative
proceedings have long been established. In its bare minimum due process of law simply means
giving notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered.

The claim of petitioner that a formal investigation was not necessary because the incident which
gave rise to the termination of private respondent was witnessed by his co-employees and
supervisors is without merit. The basic requirement of due process is that which hears before it
condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial.
PHILIPPINESINGAPORE TRANSPORT SERVICES, INC., v. NA TIONAL LABOR RELATIONS
COMMISSION and Capt. WENEFREDO N. ESTRADA
G.R. No. 95449 August 18, 1997
TORRES, JR., J.:

FACTS: Barely two months following his employment, Estrada, was informed that he would be
relieved from his employment and repatriated back to the Philippines He was not given any
explanation or reason for his relief. On that same day, someone took over as captain of Sea
Carrier I, which prompted Estrada to relinquish his post. On account of this unfortunate incident,
he decided to return to Manila the following day. Upon his arrival, he readily went to petitioner
PSTS to ask about his dismissal from employment and to claim for his unpaid salary and the sum
corresponding to his plane fare which was deducted from his salary. Petitioner PSTS informed
him that his service was terminated due to his incompetence. It also denied his claim for the
sums of money. POEA Adjudication Department ruled in favor of the private respondent by
holding that his dismissal from service was illegal. Dissatisfied, PSTS appealed to the NLRC on
but NLRC, affirmed POEA’s decision.

ISSUE: W/N private respondent was validly dismissed from the service on account of his alleged
incompetence.

HELD: NO. The dismissal of private respondent was impetuously made without the benefit of the
required notice and hearing.

Before an employee can be dismissed, the Labor Code, as amended, requires the employer to
furnish the employee a written notice containing a statement of the causes for termination and
to afford said employee ample opportunity to be heard and to defend himself with the assistance
of his representative if he so desires. The record of the instant case clearly shows that the
foregoing requirements are not complied with. He was not given any explanation or reason for
his dismissal. His replacement as master of the vessel came in the afternoon of the same day he
was informed of his repatriation.
 HON. RENATO C. CORONA, et.al v. UN ITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES and MANILA PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
G.R. No. 111953 December 12, 1997
ROMERO, J.:

FACTS: The PPA Pursuant to its power of control, regulation, and supervision of pilots and the
pilotage profession the PPA promulgated PPAAO0385, which limits the term of appointment of
harbor pilots to one year subject to yearly renewal or cancellation. Respondents United Harbor
Pilots Association and the Manila Pilots Association questioned the constitutionality of the
administrative order but Department of Transportation stated that the matter of reviewing,
recalling or annulling PPA's administrative issuances lies exclusively with its Board of Directors as
its governing body”. The lower court declared that PPA Administrative Order 0492 and its
implementing Circulars and Orders are declared null and void.

ISSUE: W/N Administrative order violates respondents' right to exercise their profession and
their right to due process of law?

HELD: YES. Court is convinced that PPAAO No. 0492 was issued in stark disregard of
respondents' right against deprivation of property without due process of law.

As a general rule, notice and hearing, as the fundamental requirements of procedural due
process, are essential only when an administrative body exercises its quasijudicial function. In
the performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and regulations, an
administrative body need not comply with the requirements of notice and hearing. Their
argument has thus shifted from the procedural to one of substance. It is here where PPAAO No.
0492 fails to meet the condition set by the organic law.

Before harbor pilots can earn a license to practice their profession, they literally have to
pass through the proverbial eye of a needle by taking, not one but five examinations, each
followed by actual training and practice. Under the new issuance, they have to contend with an
annual cancellation of their license which can be temporary or permanent depending on the
outcome of their performance evaluation. Veteran pilots and neophytes alike are suddenly
confronted with one year terms which ipso facto expire at the end of that period.