Concept of Due Process In Civil Cases

The concept of due process in civil cases A Paper Submitted to the Graduate School of Law of Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila In compliance with the requirements of “Constitutional Law (Bill of Rights) Christine P. Carpio-Aldeguer, DBA September 13, 2014

Preliminary Statement:

Due process is an old and familiar doctrine. In providing actual

definition of due process, the author relies heavily on legal luminaries

and jurisprudence. Requirements and standards for procedural due

process, on the other hand, seems to be straightforward whenever the

highest court of the land would be asked to interpret. As a result, legal

practitioners, lower court judges, and even the executive and legislative

branches of our government are properly guided, so that there would be

no deprivation of basic human rights.

As preferred by the author, she wishes to discuss the study of the

principle of “due process” as applicable in civil cases. By way of

definition, a civil action is defined as a personal action which is instituted

to compel payment, or the doing some other thing which is purely civil in

nature. 1 A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the

enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a

wrong. A civil action may either be ordinary or special. Both are

governed by the rules for ordinary civil actions, subject to the specific

rules prescribed for a special civil action. 2 Therefore, the crux of this

study is an analysis of the concept of “due process” as applied in civil

actions. Whether the deprivation of life, liberty and property will all be

applicable to civil actions in presenting the concept of “due process”

shall also be resolved.

1 -- Black’s Law Dictionary.

2 -- Rule 1, Section 3, Rules of Court.

The “due process” clause apply to life, liberty and property in civil actions

The principle of “due process” has been defined as a fundamental

procedural standard that ensures that every citizen has the right to be

heard and have a proper hearing in a court of law before being deprived

of any life, liberty or property pursuant to a government decree.

Article III Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides an

express recognition of the right to due process which states:

“Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty

and property without due process of law, nor shall any

person be denied equal protection of the laws.”

The term “life,” of which a person may not be deprived without due

process, means more than animal existence. With the emphasis on

social and economic rights at present, life includes at the very least the

right to a decent living.3 To apply the term in civil actions or

proceedings, deprivation of life may include foreclosure of mortgage of

real properties and personal properties, as well as provisional remedies

of attachment of personal properties filed before the courts of justice,

since this will involve the deprivation of economic and social rights of an

individual to a decent living.

Justice Malcolm defines “liberty” as “the measure of freedom which may

be enjoyed in a civilized community consistently with the peaceful

enjoyment of life freedom in others. x x x. Liberty includes the right to

be free to use his faculties in all lawful ways; to live and work where he

wills; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling, to pursue any avocation;

3 -- Philippine Legal Encyclopedia by Jose Agaton R. Sibal, Central Lawbook

Publishing Co, Inc. page 520.

and for that purpose, to enter into all contracts which may be proper,

necessary, and essential to his carrying out these purposes to a

successful conclusion. Liberty is freedom to do right and never wrong; it

is guided by reason and the upright and honorable conscience of the

individual.4 By way of illustration, the term may include artists signing

under a term-exclusivity contract, or may include employees under a

non-compete agreement or perpetual confidentiality agreement with

liquidated damages for indemnification.

Moreover, “Property” is defined as “anything which is or may be the

object of appropriation.” Anything which has money value and which is

supposed to be within the commerce of man is embraced in the term

property. The right to earn one’s daily wage and the right to engage in

business are likewise property. 5 Actions involving sums of money and

execution judgments on properties are included under this definition.

In other words, the “due process ” clause as applied in civil actions may

apply to life, liberty and property.

The concept of “due process of law”

The due process clause under the 1987 Philippine Constitution has long

been the subject of extensive interpretation by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has read the phrase “due process of law” to impose

certain requirements, which has been procedural in nature. The author

wishes to focus on the concept of procedural due process.

4 -- Ibid., page 518. 5 -- Ibid., page 783.

“Due process of law” is a law which hears before it condemns; which

proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment after trial.6 It

contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is

rendered affecting one's person or property.7

Due process implies due notice to the individual of the proceedings, an

opportunity to defend himself, and the problem of the propriety of the

deprivations under the circumstances presented, must be resolved in a

manner consistent with essential fairness.8 As expressed by Yeazell,

S., (2004), “The fundamental requirement of due process is an

opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner.”9

To sum up, notice and opportunity to be heard are the twin requirements

of procedural due process.

Elements and Remedies

The Supreme Court provided the standards of procedural due process

which, applies to civil cases, to wit: (1) There must be a court or tribunal

clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it;

(2) jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the

defendant or over the property which is the subject of the proceedings;

6 -- Raquiza vs. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50. 7 -- Macabingkil vs. Yatco, 21 SCRA 151; Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company vs. Cadiao L-28725, March 12, 1966, 22 SCRA 987; Bermejo vs. Barrios, 31 SCRA 764, 775; Jose Carandang vs. Hon. Joe Cabatuando, etc., et al. L-25384, October 26, 1973; Luzon Surety Co., Inc, v. Jesus Panaguiton, G.R. No. L-26054, July 21, 1978, 84 SCRA 148,153 8 -- Aquino, Jr., vs. Military Commission, No. 2, 63 SCRA 546. 9 - Yeazell, S. (2004), Civil Procedure, 6th Edition, 2004, pp. 324-325.

(3) the defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and (4)

judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. 10

Using the concept of Kuckes, N., (2006), 11 this civil model of procedural

due process provide four distinct elements: participatory procedures

(the affected party is present); an unbiased adjudicator (the decision-

maker is a neutral non-party); prior process (the hearing precedes the

adverse action); and continuity (hearing rights attach at all stages):

First, as applied in civil settings, due process places central importance

on the participation of the affected party in decision-making. Notice and

an opportunity to be heard is, obviously, the principle without which a

participatory model of justice cannot work effectively. Unless a party is

notified that there is a controversy, it cannot participate in decision-

making; unless a party has the opportunity for a hearing, it cannot

present its side of the controversy. This is the adversary system’s vision

of justice.

Second, a core element of procedural due process is that the decision-

maker must be scrupulously neutral – not biased in favor of either side,

nor charged with responsibilities that would interfere with her ability to “to

hold the balance nice, clear, and true” between the parties.

10 -- El Banco Español-Filipino v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390, 37 Phil. 921, 934 (1918). 11 -- Kuckes, N., (2006), “Civil Due Process, Criminal Due Process,” unpublished,

Roger Williams University School of Law,

The third critical component of procedural due process, as

conventionally understood, is that process must ordinarily precede rather

than follow the deprivation. In the classic due process model used in civil

cases, the constitutionally required notice-and-hearing must be provided

at a “meaningful time.” The default rule is that notice and a hearing

must be provided before the government takes adverse action, except in

exigent circumstances.

Finally, due process requires hearing procedures with respect to

temporary or preliminary deprivations, as well as for those that are final

and permanent.

In other words, this would entail a course of legal proceedings according

to existing rules and procedure which have been established in our

system of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private

rights. Therefore, the essential element of procedural due process, as

clearly established in civil settings, is that notice and a hearing must

ordinarily precede any deprivation of a liberty or property interest. Such

concept of “Civil due process” is the shorthand this research paper uses

to describe such test.

Let us also analyze an important concept emphasized by the Supreme

Court as follows:

“For well-entrenched indeed in our jurisprudence is the indispensable requisite that for the constitutional guarantee of the right to be heard, parties to the case must be notified as to when such hearing shall take place. Not only have the parties the right to be present at the trial of their cases but

are also entitled to a reasonable notice of the time fixed for trial.”12

Such jurisprudence emphasized the need for such reasonable notice of

scheduled hearings and trials as a valuable and much more important

aspect of due process of law and that the notice requirement is of

primary importance in order to afford a litigant his day in court.

Accordingly, the Rules of Court in civil actions expressly provide notice

requirements to adverse parties on filing and submission of pleadings,

pre-trial conferences, trial proceedings and even during service of

judgments or final orders of the court. The Rules of Court purports to

be a complete system of practice in civil cases, and it contains

provisions describing with much fullness the various steps to be taken in

the conduct of such proceedings. To this end, it defines with precision

the method of beginning, conducting, and concluding the civil action of

whatever species.

More importantly, the Rules of Court provides specific guidelines for

notice requirements, and must be followed strictly. The Supreme Court

expressed its firm declaration that “x x x the basic rules on modes of

service of pleadings, motions, notices, orders, judgments, and other

papers are mandatory in nature and, therefore, must be strictly

observed. The Court is not unaware of the inherent power of courts to

control its proceedings. Nonetheless, the exercise of such inherent

power must not violate basic court procedures. More importantly, it must 12 -- LUZON SURETY CO., INC., vs. JESUS PANAGUITON, ET AL., G.R. No. L-

26054, First Division, July 21, 1978.

not disregard one’s basic constitutional right to procedural due

process.”13

Philippine jurisprudence has extensively laid down as a fundamental part

of due process the essential requisite that a party should be given an

opportunity to be heard by notifying or informing him or his counsel as to

when such a hearing will take place, affording him reasonable notice of

the time fixed for the hearing or trial of the case. The following are

some of the citations:

a) Lack of notice to a party in a judicial proceedings

is a denial of due process. (Shell Company of the Philippines

vs. Enage, 49 SCRA 416) ;

b) Denial of procedural due process is a grave

jurisdictional defect rendering judgment void. (Aducayen vs.

Flores, 51 SCRA 78)

c) Lack of notice to a party adversely affected has

invariably been held to mean the nullity of the decisions

rendered in ordinary civil case since they suffer from a fatal

infirmity for want of due process. (Tiglao vs. Commission on

Elections, et al., L-31566 and 31847, August 31, 1970.)

13 -- Rogelio Aberca et al. vs. Maj. Gen. Fabian C. Ver et al., G.R. No. 166216, Third

Division, March 14, 2012.

Conclusion

In civil due process, notice and opportunity to be heard are the twin

requirements of procedural due process. Basic standards have been

provided by the Supreme Court as early as 1918 for the observance of

procedural due process. These standards can be complied with as long

as there is strict adherence to the rules of procedure regarding notices to

the adverse parties. The notice requirements under Rules of Court

provide a meaningful and timely manner of notifying adverse parties.

Therefore, strict adherence to the Rules of Court is key in order to

comply with the civil procedural due process.

Concept of Due Process In Civil Cases

Documents

Transcript of Concept of Due Process In Civil Cases