STATUTORY DUE PROCESS

Definition

1. The minimum requirement is to be heard or to be afforded the opportunity to be heard: It

is true that in both Arnett and Mathews, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that due process. was not violated
due to the lack of a formal hearing before the employee "was dismissed and welfare benefits were cancelled
in the respective cases: Nevertheless, in bo.th cases it was recognized that the aggrieved party had the
opportunity for a hearing to settle factual or evidentiary disputes in subsequent procedures. In our legal
system, however, the opportunity for a hearing after the administrative level may not arise as the reception
of evidence or the conduct of hearings are discretionary on the part of the appellate courts.

2. The constitutional right to due process secures to everyone an opportunity to be heard,

presupposing foreknowledge of what he may be up against, and to submit any evidence that he may wish
to proffer in an effort to clear himself. This right is two-pronged — substantive and procedural due process
— founded, in the first instance, on Constitutional or statutory provisions, and in the second instance, on
accepted rules of procedure. (Aniag, Jr. vs. Commission on Elections, 237 SCRA 424; Tupas vs. Court of
Appeals, 193 SCRA 597) Substantive due process looks into the extrinsic and intrinsic validity of the law
that figures to interfere with the right of a person to his life, liberty and property. Procedural due process
— the more litigated of the two — focuses on the rules that are established in order to ensure meaningful
adjudication in the enforcement and implementation of the law. Like "public concern," the term due process
does not admit of any restrictive definition. Justice Frankfurter has viewed this flexible concept, aptly I
believe, as being ". . . compounded by history, reason, the past course of decisions, and stout confidence in
the democratic faith." The framers of our own Constitution, it would seem, have deliberately intended, to
make it malleable to the ever-changing milieu of society. Hitherto, it is dynamic and resilient, adaptable to
every situation calling for its application that makes it appropriate to accept an enlarged concept of the term
as and when there is a possibility that the right of an individual to life, liberty and property might be diffused.
Verily, whenever there is an imminent threat to the life, liberty or property of any person in any proceeding
conducted by or under the auspices of the State, his right to due process of law, when demanded, must not
be ignored.

3. At its core, substantive due process guarantees a right to liberty that cannot be taken away
or unduly constricted, except through valid causes provided in the law.
The concepts of procedural and substantive due process had been carried over and applied to illegal
dismissal cases, although notably, employers are not governmental bodies to which these rights usually
refer. Agabon v. NLRC described the due process required in dismissing employees as statutory –
requirements that the law imposes on employers to comply with, in contrast to constitutional due process
rights that guarantee against overreach from the government.
Although statutory in nature, the procedural and substantive due process requirements in illegal
dismissal cases stem from the protection that the Constitution provides labor – the Constitution has tasked
the State to promote the workers’ security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. These
guarantees, as well as a host of other rights and responsibilities, find implementation through the Labor
Code, which fleshed out the concept of security of tenure as the continuance of regular employment until
an employee's services are terminated because of just or authorized causes enumerated in the law.
Thus, despite the differences in origin and application between constitutional due process rights
and the statutory requirements in the Labor Code, we have applied concepts implementing constitutional
due process rights to the statutory due process requirements of the Labor Code. We did this in the present
case, when we emphasized the need for substantial evidence to support the just cause for the employee's
dismissal at the time her services were terminated. In the same way that the crime charged against an
accused must first be proven before his or her right to liberty is taken away, or that a government employee's
infraction must first be proven before the accused is deprived of the right to continue !o hold office, so too,
must just cause against an employee be proven before he or she may be deprived of a means of livelihood.
Otherwise, the employee's right to substantive due process would be violated. (G.R. No. 200898, June
15, 2015)

4. https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/nov2004/gr_158693_2004.html - AGABON CASE

Remedies in cases for violations of statutory procedural due process

1. Payment of nominal damages in cases of termination absent procedural due process:

Indeed, while PSC had an authorized ground to terminate its employees by virtue of the
closure of its business, its failure to comply with the proper procedure for termination
renders it liable to pay the employees nominal damages for such omission. In Business
Services of the Future Today, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, which reiterated the ruling in
Agabon v. National Labor Relations Commission, this Court held that where the dismissal
is for an authorized cause, the lack of statutory due process should not nullify the dismissal,
or render it illegal, or ineffectual. However, the employer should indemnify the employee,
in the form of nominal damages, for the violation of his right to statutory due process. Thus,
PSC's violation of their employees' right to statutory procedural due process warrants the
payment of indemnity in the form of nominal damages.

In the instant case, there was an authorized cause for termination considering that it was
prompted by the cessation of PSC's operation which was done in good faith and due to
circumstances beyond its control. It, likewise, appears that PSC had the intention to give
its employees the benefits due them upon their termination as in fact many members of the
Union, with the exclusion of some Union officers, have already claimed and accepted their
separation pay and benefits. Under the facts and circumstances attendant to the case, this
Court finds the amount of ₱30,000.00 in nominal damages sufficient to vindicate each
private respondent's right to due process. (G.R. No. 196110)