ASG Law

Category: Due Process

  • Navigating Serious Misconduct and Due Process in Employment Termination: A Comprehensive Guide

    Key Takeaway: Balancing Just Cause and Procedural Fairness in Employee Dismissals

    University of the Cordilleras v. Lacanaria, G.R. No. 223665, September 27, 2021

    Imagine a classroom where a student collapses during a performance, and the instructor’s response leads to a legal battle over employment rights. This scenario unfolded at the University of the Cordilleras, sparking a significant Supreme Court case that delves into the nuances of serious misconduct and procedural due process in employee terminations. The central issue was whether the university’s decision to dismiss a professor was justified and legally sound, highlighting the delicate balance between an employer’s right to discipline and an employee’s right to fairness.

    The case involved Benedicto Lacanaria, a professor who was dismissed after a controversial incident with a student, Rafael Flores. During a class presentation, Flores, who was ill, collapsed but was compelled by Lacanaria to continue. Lacanaria’s subsequent remarks and actions led to his dismissal, which he contested on the grounds of lack of due process. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case offers critical insights into the legal standards governing employment terminations in the Philippines.

    Legal Context: Understanding Serious Misconduct and Due Process

    In the realm of Philippine labor law, the concept of serious misconduct as a ground for dismissal is governed by Article 297 of the Labor Code, which states that an employer may terminate employment for serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee in connection with their work. Serious misconduct must be of a grave and aggravated character, connected to the employee’s work, and performed with wrongful intent.

    Procedural due process, on the other hand, is a fundamental right enshrined in the Labor Code and its implementing rules. It requires employers to provide two notices to the employee: the first notice detailing the charges and allowing the employee to respond, and the second notice informing them of the decision to terminate. The Supreme Court has emphasized that while a formal hearing is not always necessary, the employee must be given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

    For example, if an employee is accused of theft at their workplace, the employer must not only have substantial evidence to prove the misconduct but also follow the correct procedure by notifying the employee and giving them a chance to defend themselves. This ensures that the employee’s rights are protected, even in cases of serious misconduct.

    Key provisions from the Labor Code relevant to this case include:

    Article 297 [282] (a) of the Labor Code: ‘An employer may terminate an employment for any of the following causes: (a) Serious misconduct or willful disobedience by the employee of the lawful orders of his employer or representative in connection with his work…’

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Lacanaria’s Dismissal

    The case began when Rafael Flores, a student at the University of the Cordilleras, collapsed during a class presentation due to illness. Despite his condition, Professor Benedicto Lacanaria instructed him to continue, later making insensitive remarks. This led to Flores filing a complaint against Lacanaria, triggering an investigation by the university.

    The university’s grievance committee conducted hearings, but Lacanaria claimed he was not properly notified. Despite his absence, the committee recommended his dismissal, which was upheld by the university’s administration. Lacanaria challenged this decision through the labor tribunals, arguing that he was denied due process.

    The Executive Labor Arbiter (ELA) and the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) found that Lacanaria’s actions constituted serious misconduct and upheld his dismissal. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, citing a lack of due process and ordering Lacanaria’s reinstatement.

    The Supreme Court, in its final ruling, agreed that Lacanaria’s actions constituted serious misconduct. The Court highlighted:

    ‘Misconduct involves the transgression of some established and definite rule or action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment.’

    However, the Court also found procedural lapses in the university’s handling of the case. Lacanaria was not given proper notice of the hearings, and the university failed to follow its own grievance procedure. The Court noted:

    ‘The Charge Sheet with Notice of Investigation charged Lacanaria with serious misconduct and a violation of the Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers then enumerated the imposable penalties without however specifying which provisions were violated.’

    Despite these procedural errors, the Court upheld the dismissal on the grounds of just cause but awarded Lacanaria nominal damages for the lack of due process.

    Practical Implications: Lessons for Employers and Employees

    This ruling underscores the importance of both substantive and procedural due process in employment terminations. Employers must ensure they have substantial evidence of misconduct and follow proper procedures to avoid legal challenges. For employees, understanding their rights to due process can be crucial in contesting unfair dismissals.

    Businesses should review their disciplinary policies to ensure compliance with labor laws, particularly in documenting and notifying employees of charges and hearings. Employees should be aware of their rights to respond to allegations and seek legal advice if they believe their termination was unjust.

    Key Lessons:

    • Employers must substantiate claims of serious misconduct with substantial evidence.
    • Procedural due process is non-negotiable; employers must provide proper notices and opportunities for employees to defend themselves.
    • Employees should document interactions and seek legal counsel if they believe their rights have been violated.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What constitutes serious misconduct in the workplace?

    Serious misconduct involves a grave and aggravated act connected to the employee’s work, performed with wrongful intent. Examples include theft, fraud, or actions that harm the employer’s business or reputation.

    How can an employer ensure due process in termination?

    Employers must provide two notices: one detailing the charges and allowing the employee to respond, and another informing them of the termination decision. Additionally, a hearing or opportunity to be heard is essential.

    Can an employee be dismissed without a formal hearing?

    Yes, but the employee must still be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges, which can be through written explanations or submissions.

    What are the consequences of failing to follow due process?

    While the dismissal may still be upheld if there is just cause, the employer may be liable for nominal damages for failing to observe procedural due process.

    How can employees protect themselves from unfair dismissal?

    Employees should document all interactions with their employer, especially during disciplinary proceedings, and seek legal advice if they believe their termination was unjust.

    ASG Law specializes in labor and employment law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Tax Assessments: The Critical Role of Due Process and Timely Notices

    The Importance of Due Process and Timely Notices in Tax Assessments

    Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Unioil Corporation, G.R. No. 204405, August 04, 2021

    Imagine receiving a hefty tax bill out of the blue, with no clear explanation of why you owe it or how it was calculated. This scenario is not just frustrating but can also be legally invalid, as demonstrated in the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Unioil Corporation. The central issue in this case was whether the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) properly followed due process in assessing Unioil Corporation for deficiency withholding taxes. The case underscores the importance of timely notices and clear communication in tax assessments, ensuring taxpayers are not left in the dark about their obligations.

    In this case, Unioil Corporation faced assessments for deficiency withholding tax on compensation and expanded withholding tax for the year 2005, totaling P536,801.10. The key question was whether the CIR had issued a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN) and if Unioil had received it, as required by law. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) and eventually the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Unioil, highlighting the CIR’s failure to provide clear and timely notices, thus invalidating the assessments.

    Legal Context

    The legal framework governing tax assessments in the Philippines is primarily outlined in the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) and its implementing regulations. Section 228 of the NIRC mandates that before an assessment can be made, the taxpayer must be notified in writing of the law and facts on which the assessment is based. This requirement is crucial to ensure that taxpayers are given a fair opportunity to understand and contest any tax liability.

    Similarly, Section 3 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 12-99 details the due process requirement in the issuance of a deficiency tax assessment. It outlines four stages: Notice for Informal Conference, Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN), Formal Letter of Demand and Assessment Notice, and Administrative Decision on a Disputed Assessment. Each stage must be followed meticulously to uphold the taxpayer’s right to due process.

    Key terms such as “Preliminary Assessment Notice” (PAN) and “Formal Letter of Demand” (FLD) are critical in this context. A PAN informs the taxpayer of the proposed assessment and the reasons behind it, allowing them to respond before a final assessment is made. The FLD, on the other hand, is the final notice that includes a demand for payment and must also state the legal and factual bases for the assessment.

    For instance, consider a small business owner who receives a PAN. This notice gives them the chance to review their records and possibly dispute the proposed assessment before it becomes final. If the PAN is not issued or received, the business owner might be unfairly burdened with an unexpected tax liability.

    Case Breakdown

    The journey of Unioil Corporation through the Philippine legal system began with a Formal Letter of Demand and Final Assessment Notice (FAN) received on January 26, 2009, for deficiency withholding taxes for the year 2005. Unioil protested the assessment, arguing that it had not received the required PAN, which is a prerequisite for a valid assessment.

    The case first went to the CTA Third Division, where Unioil argued that the absence of a PAN and the lack of clear factual and legal bases in the FAN rendered the assessment void. The CTA Third Division agreed, emphasizing that the CIR failed to prove Unioil’s receipt of the PAN. The court stated, “In the case at bar, [UNIOIL] denied receiving the Preliminary Assessment Notice. It follows that it is incumbent upon [the CIR] to prove the receipt of the subject assessment notice by contrary evidence.”

    The CIR appealed to the CTA En Banc, but the decision was upheld. The En Banc court reiterated, “The law and the regulations are clear on the requirements for procedural due process on the issuance of assessment for deficiency taxes. Full and complete compliance with these requirements is mandatory to ensure the validity of the assessment.”

    When the case reached the Supreme Court, the CIR attempted to introduce new evidence of the PAN’s issuance and Unioil’s receipt. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this evidence should have been presented at the CTA level and could not be considered at this stage. The Court emphasized, “The CIR’s failure to comply with the notice requirements under Section 228 of the 1997 NIRC effectively denied Unioil of its right to due process. Consequently, the CIR’s assessment was void.”

    The procedural steps in this case highlight the importance of:

    • Issuing a PAN before a FAN
    • Proving the taxpayer’s receipt of the PAN
    • Ensuring that the FAN clearly states the legal and factual bases for the assessment
    • Adhering to the three-year prescriptive period for assessments

    Practical Implications

    This ruling reinforces the necessity for tax authorities to adhere strictly to procedural requirements when assessing taxes. It serves as a reminder to taxpayers to be vigilant about receiving and responding to notices from the tax authorities.

    For businesses, this case underscores the importance of maintaining detailed records and promptly responding to any tax notices. If a PAN is received, businesses should review their records and, if necessary, file a protest within the prescribed period.

    Property owners and individuals should also be aware of their rights to due process in tax assessments. If they receive a tax notice, they should ensure it includes all required information and seek legal advice if they believe the assessment is invalid.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always verify receipt of a PAN before a FAN is issued.
    • Maintain thorough records to dispute any discrepancies in tax assessments.
    • Seek legal counsel if you believe a tax assessment violates due process.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is a Preliminary Assessment Notice (PAN)?

    A PAN is a notice issued by the tax authority that informs the taxpayer of a proposed tax assessment and the reasons behind it. It gives the taxpayer an opportunity to respond before the assessment becomes final.

    Why is the PAN important?

    The PAN is crucial because it ensures that taxpayers are informed of any proposed tax liabilities and have a chance to contest them before they become final. Without a PAN, the final assessment may be considered void.

    What happens if I don’t receive a PAN?

    If you do not receive a PAN, any subsequent Final Assessment Notice (FAN) may be invalid, as the tax authority has not followed due process. You should seek legal advice to contest the assessment.

    Can the tax authority assess taxes after the three-year prescriptive period?

    Generally, no. The tax authority must assess taxes within three years from the last day prescribed by law for filing the return. Exceptions include cases of fraud or failure to file a return.

    What should I do if I receive a tax assessment?

    Review the assessment carefully to ensure it includes the legal and factual bases for the tax liability. If you disagree with the assessment, file a protest within the prescribed period and seek legal advice.

    ASG Law specializes in tax law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Understanding Void Judgments: The Impact of Invalid Summons on Property Disputes

    The Importance of Proper Service of Summons in Ensuring Due Process

    Titan Dragon Properties Corporation v. Marlina Veloso-Galenzoga, G.R. No. 246088, April 28, 2021

    Imagine waking up one day to find that your property has been taken away from you, not through a fair legal process, but due to a procedural oversight that you were never even aware of. This is the reality that Titan Dragon Properties Corporation faced when a court decision stripped them of a valuable 70,364-square meter property in Quezon City. The central issue in this case revolved around the validity of the service of summons, a critical aspect of legal proceedings that ensures parties are given their day in court. The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules to uphold the principles of due process and fairness in the legal system.

    The dispute between Titan Dragon Properties Corporation and Marlina Veloso-Galenzoga began with a purported sale of a large piece of land in 1997. Veloso-Galenzoga claimed she had been paying taxes on the property since then, but the corporation had failed to deliver possession and pay necessary taxes. This led to a series of legal battles, culminating in a Supreme Court decision that declared the trial court’s judgment void due to improper service of summons.

    Legal Context: The Role of Summons and Due Process

    In the Philippine legal system, the service of summons is a fundamental step in initiating a lawsuit. It ensures that the defendant is aware of the legal action against them, thereby upholding the right to due process. The Rules of Court specify that personal service is the preferred method, but alternative methods like substituted service or service by publication can be used under certain conditions.

    Due process is a cornerstone of legal proceedings, ensuring that every party has the opportunity to be heard. In the context of property disputes, this means that the owner must be properly notified of any legal action that could affect their rights to the property. The relevant provision here is Section 14, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Court, which allows for service by publication when the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained through diligent inquiry.

    To illustrate, consider a scenario where a tenant is being evicted. The landlord must serve the tenant with a summons to ensure they are aware of the eviction proceedings and can defend their rights. Failure to do so could result in a void judgment, as seen in the Titan Dragon case.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey to the Supreme Court

    The case began when Marlina Veloso-Galenzoga filed a complaint for specific performance against Titan Dragon Properties Corporation, alleging that the corporation had failed to fulfill its obligations under a 1997 Deed of Absolute Sale. The trial court granted Veloso-Galenzoga’s motion to serve summons by publication after the sheriff failed to serve it at the corporation’s listed address.

    However, the Supreme Court found that the requirements for service by publication were not met. The Court emphasized the need for diligent efforts to locate the defendant before resorting to publication, stating, “The diligence requirement under Section 14, Rule 14 of the Rules means that there must be prior resort to personal service under Section 7 and substituted service under Section 8 of the same Rule, and proof that these modes were ineffective before summons by publication may be allowed.”

    The procedural journey included:

    • The trial court’s decision to allow service by publication.
    • The corporation’s subsequent declaration of default and the issuance of a judgment by default.
    • The Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the trial court’s decision, despite a dissent arguing for the invalidity of the service.
    • The Supreme Court’s reversal, highlighting the lack of diligence in serving the summons and the expansion of the writ of execution beyond the original complaint.

    The Supreme Court’s ruling was clear: “Absent compliance with the rigid requirements on the service of summons, service by publication is invalid. Hence, Br. 95-RTC never acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner corporation.” This decision nullified all proceedings and issuances related to the case, emphasizing the importance of proper service to ensure a fair trial.

    Practical Implications: Ensuring Fairness in Property Disputes

    This ruling serves as a reminder to all parties involved in legal disputes, particularly those involving property, to ensure that procedural rules are strictly followed. For businesses and property owners, it underscores the need to maintain accurate records of their addresses and to be vigilant about any legal proceedings that may affect their rights.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always verify the accuracy of addresses listed in legal documents to prevent issues with service of summons.
    • Be aware of the procedural requirements for serving summons and ensure that these are followed to avoid void judgments.
    • If you believe a judgment was issued without proper service, consider filing a petition for certiorari to challenge its validity.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is a void judgment?
    A void judgment is one that lacks legal effect from its inception due to a fundamental flaw in the legal process, such as improper service of summons.

    Why is proper service of summons important?
    Proper service ensures that the defendant is aware of the legal action against them, thereby upholding their right to due process and a fair trial.

    What should I do if I believe I was not properly served with summons?
    If you believe you were not properly served, you may file a petition for certiorari to challenge the validity of the judgment.

    Can a void judgment be enforced?
    No, a void judgment cannot be enforced as it has no legal effect and can be disregarded by any tribunal.

    What are the consequences of a void judgment in a property dispute?
    A void judgment in a property dispute can result in the nullification of any actions taken based on that judgment, including changes in property ownership or possession.

    ASG Law specializes in property law and civil procedure. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Understanding Due Process in Administrative Proceedings: A Guide to Avoiding Liability

    Due Process is Paramount in Administrative Liability Cases

    Victor M. Barroso v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 253253, April 27, 2021

    Imagine being held financially responsible for a crime you had no part in, simply because you were in a position of authority. This is the nightmare that Victor M. Barroso, President of Bukidnon State University, faced when the Commission on Audit (COA) held him liable for a theft he had no direct involvement in. The Supreme Court’s decision in his favor underscores the critical importance of due process in administrative proceedings, a principle that safeguards individuals from arbitrary decisions.

    At the heart of this case is the theft of payroll money amounting to P574,215.27, which was snatched from an administrative officer as she walked back to the university. The COA initially held the officer, Evelyn S. Mag-abo, responsible for the loss, but later extended liability to Barroso and another university official, Wilma L. Gregory, citing negligence. The central legal question was whether Barroso’s right to due process was violated by the COA’s decision to hold him liable without giving him a chance to defend himself.

    Legal Context: The Pillars of Due Process in Administrative Law

    Due process is a cornerstone of Philippine legal system, ensuring fairness and justice in both judicial and administrative proceedings. In administrative cases, due process is defined by the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, which established seven cardinal requirements for a fair hearing. These include the right to be heard, the right to present evidence, and the necessity for decisions to be based on substantial evidence presented at the hearing.

    Under the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), specifically Section 102(1) and Section 104 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, public officials can be held liable for negligence in the custody of government funds. However, this liability must be determined through a process that adheres to due process standards.

    Consider a scenario where a local government official is accused of mismanaging public funds. If the official is not given the opportunity to defend themselves, any decision against them could be overturned on due process grounds, as was the case with Barroso.

    The Journey of Victor M. Barroso’s Case

    On March 17, 2005, Mag-abo was granted a cash advance to pay the salaries of BSU employees. On March 28, 2005, she went to encash the check but left it with the bank verifier due to a long queue. Upon returning to collect the money with other employees, they were robbed near a gas station. The COA audit team quickly pointed to Mag-abo’s negligence, and despite her appeals, her liability was affirmed by various COA bodies.

    Surprisingly, in April 2015, the COA Proper extended the liability to Barroso and Gregory, citing their failure to provide security measures. Barroso, who was not involved in the initial proceedings, filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that he was deprived of due process. This motion was denied in January 2020, prompting Barroso to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

    The Supreme Court’s decision hinged on the principle that due process cannot be merely an afterthought. As Justice Lazaro-Javier wrote, “The mere filing of a motion for reconsideration cannot cure the due process defect, especially if the motion was filed precisely to raise the issue of violation of the right to due process and the lack of opportunity to be heard on the merits remained.”

    The Court found that Barroso was never charged in the initial proceedings and was only brought in at a later stage without being given access to the evidence against him. This violated his right to a fair hearing, leading to the nullification of the COA’s decisions against him.

    Practical Implications: Safeguarding Against Unfair Administrative Liability

    This ruling serves as a reminder that administrative bodies must adhere strictly to due process. For public officials, it underscores the importance of being vigilant about their rights and ensuring they are included in any proceedings that could affect their liability.

    Businesses and organizations handling government funds should implement robust internal controls and ensure that all employees understand the procedures for handling cash. In case of disputes or accusations, seeking legal counsel early can help navigate the complexities of administrative law and protect against unjust liability.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always ensure you are notified and involved in any administrative proceedings that could affect your liability.
    • Request access to all evidence and documents used against you to mount a proper defense.
    • Consider filing a motion for reconsideration if you believe your due process rights have been violated.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is due process in administrative proceedings?
    Due process in administrative proceedings ensures that individuals are given a fair chance to be heard and defend themselves against accusations. It includes the right to present evidence, the right to a hearing, and the requirement that decisions be based on substantial evidence.

    Can a public official be held liable for the actions of their subordinates?
    Yes, under certain conditions, but the official must be given due process. The liability must be established through a fair and transparent process that allows the official to defend themselves.

    What should I do if I am held liable by an administrative body without being involved in the proceedings?
    File a motion for reconsideration, highlighting the violation of your due process rights. If the motion is denied, consider appealing to a higher court.

    How can organizations protect themselves from similar situations?
    Implement strict internal controls and procedures for handling government funds. Ensure all employees are trained on these procedures and that there is a clear protocol for reporting and addressing any incidents.

    What are the consequences of a due process violation in administrative cases?
    A due process violation can lead to the nullification of the administrative body’s decision. The affected party may be relieved of any imposed liability and can seek redress for any damages incurred.

    ASG Law specializes in administrative law and due process issues. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Navigating Administrative Due Process and the Limits of Bureau of Customs Authority in the Philippines

    The Importance of Proper Procedure and Clear Authority in Administrative Actions

    Ochoa, Jr., et al. v. Dy Buco, G.R. Nos. 216634 & 216636, October 14, 2020

    Imagine being a business owner, diligently managing your warehouse, when suddenly, government officials show up with orders to inspect your premises. Your operations are halted, your goods are seized, and your livelihood is put on hold. This scenario is not uncommon in the Philippines, where the Bureau of Customs (BOC) holds significant powers to enforce customs laws. However, as highlighted in the Supreme Court case of Ochoa, Jr., et al. v. Dy Buco, these powers are not absolute and must be exercised with strict adherence to due process and legal authority.

    In this case, the BOC’s Run-After-The-Smugglers (RATS) Group attempted to enforce Mission Orders and Letters of Authority (LOAs) against Sanyo Seiki Stainless Steel Corporation, leading to the seizure of their delivery truck and cargo. The central legal question was whether the actions of Atty. Christopher S. Dy Buco and his team constituted grave misconduct, abuse of authority, oppression, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

    Understanding the Legal Framework

    The authority of the BOC to conduct inspections and seizures is derived from Section 2536 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. This section allows the Commissioner of Customs and other customs officers to demand evidence of payment of duties and taxes on foreign articles openly offered for sale or kept in storage. If no such evidence can be produced, the articles may be seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings.

    Key Provision: “The Commissioner of Customs and Collector of Customs and/or any other customs officer, with the prior authorization in writing by the Commissioner, may demand evidence of payment of duties and taxes on foreign articles openly offered for sale or kept in storage, and if no such evidence can be produced, such articles may be seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings.”

    However, the exercise of this authority must comply with the principles of due process and fairness, as outlined in the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission Rules on Investigation and Adjudication of Administrative Cases. These rules ensure that individuals are informed of the charges against them and given an opportunity to defend themselves.

    For instance, consider a scenario where a customs officer mistakenly targets a warehouse based on incorrect information. If the officer proceeds without verifying the facts, this could lead to wrongful seizures and legal repercussions. The case of Ochoa, Jr., et al. v. Dy Buco underscores the importance of ensuring that all actions taken by government officials are grounded in clear legal authority and proper procedure.

    The Journey of Ochoa, Jr., et al. v. Dy Buco

    The case began when the BOC issued Mission Orders and LOAs to the RATS Group, led by Atty. Dy Buco, to inspect warehouses belonging to Sanyo Seiki and other entities. On July 1, 2011, the RATS Group attempted to serve these orders at the Bulacan address but were denied entry. They later intercepted a delivery truck from Sanyo Seiki and seized its cargo due to lack of proper documentation.

    Sanyo Seiki filed a complaint with the Office of the President (OP), alleging misconduct by the RATS Group. The OP found Atty. Dy Buco and his team guilty of grave misconduct, abuse of authority, oppression, gross incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. They were dismissed from service, a decision that was later appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

    The CA reversed the OP’s decision, finding that Atty. Dy Buco acted within the scope of his authority and did not violate any laws or established rules. The CA noted that the RATS Group did not forcefully enter the warehouse and that the seizure of the delivery truck was justified due to the lack of proper documentation.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of due process and the lack of evidence to support the charges against Atty. Dy Buco. The Court stated, “There was no Grave Misconduct committed in the implementation of the LOAs and Mission Orders addressed to McConnell, Sanyo Seiki, and Cowlyn.” It further noted, “The elements of Grave Misconduct, particularly violation of the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule, are not attendant here.”

    The Court also highlighted the need for proper notification and the right to a fair hearing, stating, “The essence of due process is that a party is afforded reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence he/she may have in support of his/her defense.”

    Practical Implications and Key Lessons

    This ruling serves as a reminder that government officials must act within the bounds of their authority and adhere to due process. For businesses and individuals, it underscores the importance of maintaining proper documentation and being aware of their rights when dealing with government agencies.

    Key Lessons:

    • Ensure that all actions taken by government officials are backed by clear legal authority and proper documentation.
    • Businesses should keep accurate records of their transactions and be prepared to provide evidence of compliance with customs regulations.
    • When facing administrative charges, it is crucial to be informed of the specific allegations and given the opportunity to defend oneself adequately.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is the role of the Bureau of Customs in the Philippines?

    The Bureau of Customs is responsible for enforcing customs laws, collecting duties and taxes on imported goods, and preventing smuggling and other customs-related violations.

    What are Mission Orders and Letters of Authority?

    Mission Orders and Letters of Authority are official documents issued by the BOC, authorizing customs officers to conduct inspections and demand evidence of compliance with customs regulations.

    What constitutes grave misconduct in the context of administrative cases?

    Grave misconduct involves intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, often accompanied by elements of corruption or clear intent to violate the law.

    How can businesses protect themselves from wrongful seizures by the BOC?

    Businesses should maintain accurate records of their transactions, ensure compliance with customs regulations, and be prepared to provide evidence of payment of duties and taxes upon request.

    What are the key elements of due process in administrative cases?

    The key elements of due process include being informed of the charges against you, being given an opportunity to defend yourself, and ensuring that the decision-making process is fair and impartial.

    ASG Law specializes in customs and administrative law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Safeguarding Your Day in Court: Understanding Due Process and Postponements in Philippine Litigation

    Don’t Lose Your Case on a Technicality: The Importance of Due Process and Postponements

    In Philippine litigation, being denied the chance to present your side of the story can be devastating. This case underscores the crucial role of due process and the court’s responsibility to ensure fairness, even when it means granting postponements. Losing a case because of a missed hearing or a rushed trial can be avoided if courts prioritize justice over rigid adherence to schedules. This case serves as a powerful reminder that procedural rules should facilitate, not obstruct, the pursuit of truth and fairness in the Philippine justice system.

    G.R. NO. 148273, April 19, 2006

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine facing a lawsuit that could cost you your property and being denied the opportunity to even present your defense in court. This was the predicament of Milagros Simon and Liborio Balatico in their legal battle against Guia W. Canlas. This Supreme Court case highlights a fundamental principle in Philippine law: the right to due process. While courts strive for speedy resolution of cases, this case reminds us that rushing justice can be as detrimental as delaying it. The central question revolved around whether the trial court acted correctly in denying the petitioners’ request for a postponement, ultimately leading to them being unable to present their evidence and potentially losing their case without a full hearing.

    LEGAL CONTEXT: DUE PROCESS AND MOTIONS FOR POSTPONEMENT

    At the heart of this case lies the concept of due process, a cornerstone of the Philippine legal system enshrined in the Constitution. Due process, in its simplest form, means fairness. In legal proceedings, it guarantees every person the right to be heard before being condemned. This includes adequate notice, a fair hearing, and the chance to present one’s evidence and arguments. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that procedural due process requires that parties be given the opportunity to be heard. This principle is not merely a formality but a fundamental right that ensures justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.

    Related to due process is the matter of postponements or adjournments of court hearings. The Rules of Court in the Philippines allow for motions for postponement. However, the grant or denial of such motions is generally within the court’s discretion. This discretion is not absolute, though. It must be exercised judiciously, always bearing in mind the paramount interest of justice. As the Supreme Court explicitly stated in this case, citing previous jurisprudence: “Postponements and continuances are part and parcel of our procedural system of dispensing justice.” This acknowledges that sometimes, delays are necessary to ensure a fair and thorough hearing.

    The Rules of Court do not explicitly list exhaustive grounds for postponement, but valid reasons typically include: illness of a party or counsel, unavailability of a key witness, or, as in this case, a conflict in the counsel’s schedule. Crucially, the court must consider not just the reason for the postponement but also the potential prejudice to the other party and the overall interest of justice. The court must balance the need for efficient case management with the equally important right of parties to fully present their case. Section 6, Rule 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure underscores this, stating: “These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.” This highlights that the pursuit of speed should not overshadow the quest for justice.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: SIMON AND BALATICO VS. CANLAS

    The legal saga began when Edgar Canlas filed a complaint for judicial foreclosure against Milagros Simon and Liborio Balatico. Canlas claimed Milagros had taken a loan of P220,000.00, secured by a mortgage on her property, and had defaulted on payments. The Balaticos denied the loan and mortgage, alleging they never received any money and were possibly victims of fraud. They even filed a third-party complaint against Virginia Canlas and Aurelia Delos Reyes, claiming these individuals tricked Milagros into signing the mortgage documents.

    As the case progressed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Edgar Canlas passed away and was substituted by his wife, Guia W. Canlas. A pre-trial was held where the Balaticos admitted to signing the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage, but the trial proceeded as they maintained they did not receive the loan consideration and the mortgage was invalid.

    During the trial, after the plaintiff presented her evidence, it was the petitioners’ turn to present their defense. However, their counsel, Atty. Norberto De Jesus, repeatedly failed to appear in court due to various reasons, including campaigning for an election and eventually withdrawing his appearance. The RTC, in an attempt to move the case forward, gave the Balaticos multiple chances to find new counsel and present their evidence, even issuing warnings about waiving their right to present evidence if they failed to appear.

    They eventually hired Atty. Alejo Y. Sedico, who promptly filed an Entry of Appearance and a Motion to Reset the hearing. Atty. Sedico cited a conflict with a previously scheduled hearing in a criminal case in Valenzuela and the need for time to study the case as new counsel. Despite this, and despite Atty. Sedico filing another Urgent Motion to Reset due to the conflicting hearing, the RTC denied the motion. The RTC cited the respondent’s objection and the numerous postponements already granted. Consequently, the Balaticos were deemed to have waived their right to present evidence, and the case was submitted for decision based solely on the plaintiff’s evidence.

    The RTC ruled in favor of Canlas, ordering the Balaticos to pay the loan and ordering the foreclosure of the mortgage if they failed to pay. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. Both courts essentially reasoned that the Balaticos had been given ample opportunity to present their case but had forfeited their right due to their counsel’s repeated absences and the denial of the final motion for postponement.

    However, the Supreme Court reversed the CA and RTC decisions. The Supreme Court emphasized that while the grant of postponements is discretionary, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, keeping in mind the paramount interest of justice. The Court stated: “Unless grave abuse of discretion is shown, such discretion will not be interfered with either by mandamus or appeal.” In this case, the Supreme Court found grave abuse of discretion in the RTC’s denial of the postponement.

    The Supreme Court highlighted several crucial factors: Atty. Sedico was newly retained, he had a valid prior scheduling conflict in a different court, and there was no clear indication that the petitioners were deliberately delaying the case. The Court noted: “Absolutely wanting from the records is any evidence that the change of counsel was intended to delay the proceedings.” Moreover, the Court underscored the relatively short time elapsed since the previous counsel’s withdrawal. The Supreme Court concluded that denying the postponement effectively deprived the Balaticos of their right to due process, stating: “To deny petitioners their right to present evidence constitutes a denial of due process, since there are issues that cannot be decided without a trial of the case on the merits.”

    The Supreme Court ordered the case remanded to the RTC to allow the Balaticos to present their evidence, emphasizing that the pursuit of speedy disposition should not overshadow the fundamental right to be heard and the search for truth.

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: ENSURING A FAIR HEARING

    This case provides significant practical lessons for litigants and legal practitioners in the Philippines. Firstly, it underscores the importance of due process as a non-negotiable right in any legal proceeding. Courts must be vigilant in ensuring that all parties are given a genuine opportunity to present their case. While courts are burdened with heavy caseloads and the need for efficient case management, this case serves as a reminder that speed should not come at the expense of fairness.

    Secondly, it clarifies the court’s discretion regarding motions for postponement. While courts have discretion, it is not unfettered. Denying a postponement should be based on valid grounds, such as clear intent to delay or prejudice to the opposing party, not merely on docket congestion or procedural rigidity. Valid reasons for postponement, such as prior scheduling conflicts of counsel, especially new counsel who needs time to prepare, should be given due consideration.

    Thirdly, this case highlights the significance of effective legal representation. The petitioners’ initial difficulty in securing consistent legal representation contributed to the procedural issues. Parties must ensure they have competent and available counsel to protect their rights throughout the litigation process.

    Key Lessons:

    • Due Process is Paramount: Philippine courts must prioritize due process and ensure all parties have a fair opportunity to be heard.
    • Judicious Discretion on Postponements: Courts must exercise sound discretion in granting or denying postponements, balancing efficiency with fairness. Valid reasons for postponement, especially related to counsel’s availability and preparation, should be considered.
    • Right to Counsel: Having effective legal representation is crucial for navigating the complexities of litigation and ensuring one’s rights are protected.
    • Substance Over Form: Procedural rules are tools to achieve justice, not obstacles to it. Courts should interpret rules liberally to facilitate fair hearings.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q1: What is ‘due process’ in the Philippine legal system?

    A: Due process is the right to fairness in legal proceedings. It means you have the right to notice of the case against you, a fair hearing, and the opportunity to present your evidence and arguments.

    Q2: Can a court refuse to grant a postponement?

    A: Yes, courts have discretion to deny postponements, but this discretion must be exercised judiciously. Denial should be based on valid reasons, not arbitrary decisions.

    Q3: What are valid reasons for requesting a postponement?

    A: Valid reasons can include illness, unavailability of key witnesses, prior scheduling conflicts of counsel, especially new counsel needing time to prepare.

    Q4: What happens if I am denied a fair chance to present my evidence?

    A: If you are wrongly denied the chance to present your evidence, it can be considered a denial of due process. As seen in this case, higher courts can reverse decisions made in violation of due process.

    Q5: What should I do if my lawyer has a scheduling conflict?

    A: Inform the court promptly and file a Motion for Postponement, clearly explaining the conflict and why it warrants a rescheduling. Provide supporting documentation if possible.

    Q6: Is admitting the ‘due execution’ of a document the same as admitting its validity?

    A: No. Admitting due execution only means you acknowledge signing the document. You can still challenge its validity based on other grounds like fraud, lack of consideration, or mistake.

    Q7: What is a ‘motion for reconsideration’?

    A: A motion for reconsideration is a request to the same court to re-examine its decision, usually pointing out errors in law or fact.

    Q8: What does it mean when a case is ‘remanded’ to a lower court?

    A: Remanding a case means sending it back to the lower court (like the RTC in this case) for further proceedings, usually to correct errors or take additional evidence as instructed by the higher court.

    ASG Law specializes in Litigation and Civil Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Due Process in Labor Disputes: Ensuring a Fair Hearing According to Philippine Law

    n

    The Cornerstone of Fairness: Why Due Process is Non-Negotiable in Philippine Labor Cases

    n

    TLDR: This landmark Supreme Court case emphasizes that even if an employee fails to submit a position paper in a labor dispute, they are still considered to have been afforded due process if they have the opportunity to present their side on appeal. However, the primary responsibility to prove their claims rests on the employee. Failure to present evidence can lead to dismissal of their complaint.

    nn

    PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND RENE ESTILO, G.R. No. 127529, December 10, 1998

    nn

    n

    INTRODUCTION

    n

    Imagine losing your job and feeling unheard, with no chance to defend yourself. This is the fear of many Filipino workers facing termination. In the Philippines, the right to due process in labor disputes is not just a procedural formality; it’s a fundamental guarantee enshrined in law and fiercely protected by the Supreme Court. The case of Pepsi Cola Products Philippines, Inc. v. NLRC, a pivotal decision, delves into the critical aspect of due process in labor proceedings, specifically addressing what constitutes a fair opportunity to be heard, even when an employee misses certain procedural steps. This case revolves around Rene Estilo’s illegal dismissal complaint against Pepsi Cola and whether he was denied due process when the Labor Arbiter decided the case based solely on Pepsi Cola’s position paper.

    n

    nn

    n

    LEGAL CONTEXT: DUE PROCESS AND LABOR RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES

    n

    The concept of due process is deeply rooted in Philippine law, ensuring fairness and impartiality in all legal proceedings, especially in the context of labor disputes where power imbalances often exist. The Labor Code of the Philippines and relevant Supreme Court jurisprudence provide the legal framework for understanding due process rights in employment termination and other labor-related conflicts.

    n

    What is Due Process in Labor Law?

    n

    In labor disputes, due process essentially means that both employers and employees have the right to be heard and present their side of the story before any decision affecting their rights is made. This principle is crucial in termination cases, disciplinary actions, and even in resolving wage disputes. It is not merely about following procedures but about ensuring genuine fairness and the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the resolution process.

    n

    The Supreme Court has consistently held that procedural due process in termination cases requires:

    n

      n

    1. Notice: The employee must be informed of the charges against them.

      2. n

    2. Hearing: The employee must be given a real opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in their defense.

      3. n

    3. Decision: A decision based on substantial evidence, logically inferred from the facts, must be rendered by the employer or the relevant labor tribunal.

      4. n

    n

    Article 292 [277] (b) of the Labor Code explicitly states the powers of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) and Labor Arbiters, emphasizing the importance of hearing both sides:

    n

    “…to hear and decide cases involving unfair labor practices, violation of Article[s] [294] 248 and 249, and other cases arising from employer-employee relations, including claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages, attorney’s fees and other cost of litigation, if accompanied by a claim for reinstatement or if capable of pecuniary estimation, and other cases over which the Labor Arbiter has jurisdiction…”

    n

    Furthermore, the right to due process is also supported by the constitutional right to security of tenure, ensuring that employees are protected from arbitrary dismissal. This legal backdrop underscores the significance of the Pepsi Cola v. NLRC case in clarifying the nuances of due process within the NLRC framework.

    n

    nn

    n

    CASE BREAKDOWN: PEPSI COLA PRODUCTS PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. NLRC

    n

    The saga began when Rene Estilo filed a complaint against Pepsi Cola for illegal dismissal and various labor standard violations. The case landed before the Regional Arbitration Branch of the NLRC. Despite being notified of hearings, only Estilo’s lawyer appeared. The Labor Arbiter, in an attempt to move the case forward, ordered both parties to submit position papers. Pepsi Cola complied, detailing their defense and evidence. Estilo, however, failed to submit any position paper within the given timeframe.

    n

    The Labor Arbiter’s Decision

    n

    Based solely on Pepsi Cola’s submission and Estilo’s silence, the Labor Arbiter dismissed Estilo’s complaint. The Arbiter noted that Estilo had been given ample opportunity to present his case but did not avail of it.

    n

    NLRC’s Reversal and the Due Process Claim

    n

    Estilo appealed to the NLRC, arguing that the Labor Arbiter had denied him due process by deciding the case without giving him a full opportunity to be heard. The NLRC sided with Estilo, finding merit in his appeal and remanding the case back to the Labor Arbiter for further proceedings. The NLRC leaned on the principle that all parties must be given every opportunity to present their side.

    n

    Pepsi Cola, aggrieved by the NLRC’s decision, elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion. Pepsi Cola contended that Estilo was indeed given sufficient opportunity to be heard but simply failed to take it.

    n

    Supreme Court’s Ruling: Opportunity vs. Obligation

    n

    The Supreme Court reversed the NLRC’s decision, siding with Pepsi Cola and reinstating the Labor Arbiter’s original ruling. The Court’s reasoning was clear and impactful:

    n

  • Due Process and Rape Convictions: Why Precise Charge Wording is Non-Negotiable in Philippine Law

    Due Process and Rape Convictions: Why Precise Charge Wording is Non-Negotiable in Philippine Law

    TLDR: In People v. Ramos, the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence in a father-daughter rape case. The ruling hinged on a procedural technicality: the criminal information failed to explicitly state the familial relationship as a qualifying circumstance. This case demonstrates that in Philippine law, due process, particularly precise charge wording, is essential for valid convictions, even in severe crimes.

    G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine the horror: a father preying on his own daughter. Philippine law rightly seeks the harshest penalties for such heinous acts, including death. However, even in the face of such brutality, the law demands strict adherence to procedure, ensuring due process for every accused person. In the case of People of the Philippines v. Feliciano Ramos, the Supreme Court grappled with this delicate balance. While the crime was undeniably horrific – a father raping his minor daughter – a critical procedural flaw in the criminal charges led to the overturning of the death penalty. The central legal question: Does the failure to explicitly mention the familial relationship in the criminal information preclude the imposition of the death penalty for qualified rape?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: QUALIFIED RAPE AND DUE PROCESS

    Philippine law, under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, distinguishes between simple rape and qualified rape. Simple rape, involving sexual intercourse through force or intimidation, carries a penalty of reclusion perpetua. However, when certain aggravating circumstances are present, the crime becomes qualified rape, potentially punishable by death. One such qualifying circumstance, introduced by RA 7659, is when ‘the rape victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent of the victim.’

    It’s crucial to understand the difference between aggravating and qualifying circumstances. Aggravating circumstances generally increase the severity of the penalty within a range, while qualifying circumstances fundamentally change the nature of the crime and the penalty itself. In qualified rape, the specified circumstances are not merely aggravating; they are qualifying, elevating the crime and its potential punishment.

    This distinction is intertwined with the constitutional right to due process, specifically the right of an accused person ‘to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.’ Section 14(2), Article III of the Philippine Constitution mandates this right, ensuring fair trial and adequate defense preparation. This right is further implemented through rules requiring that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information. The information serves as the formal accusation, defining the boundaries of the case and informing the accused of the charges they face.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: PEOPLE V. RAMOS

    The case began when Elizabeth Ramos filed a rape complaint against her father, Feliciano Ramos, alleging he raped her in April 1995 when she was 14 years old. The initial information filed in the Regional Trial Court charged Feliciano with rape ‘by means of force, violence and intimidation’ against Elizabeth, a minor. Crucially, while it mentioned her age, it did not state that Feliciano Ramos was her father.

    During trial, Elizabeth testified tearfully about the repeated rapes. Feliciano initially pleaded not guilty, but later changed his plea to guilty after the prosecution presented evidence. The trial court, believing the case fell under qualified rape due to the father-daughter relationship, sentenced Feliciano to death. The court reasoned that relationship, while not a qualifying circumstance in the definition of rape itself, acted as a generic aggravating circumstance, justifying the higher penalty within the ‘reclusion perpetua to death’ range they mistakenly believed applied.

    On automatic review by the Supreme Court, the defense argued that since the information didn’t allege the father-daughter relationship, the death penalty was improper. The Supreme Court agreed. Justice Regalado, writing for the Court, emphasized the crucial distinction between simple and qualified rape:

    ‘…these attendant circumstances partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances, and not merely aggravating circumstances, since they increase the penalties by degrees. Aggravating circumstances affect only the period of the penalty but do not increase it to a higher degree.’

    The Court further stated:

    ‘As this qualifying circumstance was not pleaded in the information or in the complaint against appellant, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape because he was not properly informed that he is being accused of qualified rape.’

    The Supreme Court quoted the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation and reiterated that ‘every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information.’ Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction for rape but modified the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua, because the information only charged simple rape, not qualified rape. The Court explicitly stated that ‘…a conclusion of qualified rape cannot be legally justified from the allegations of such information.’

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LESSONS FOR PROSECUTORS AND DUE PROCESS

    The Ramos case serves as a stark warning to prosecutors and law enforcement in the Philippines. It is not enough to prove the qualifying circumstance of familial relationship in court; it must be explicitly alleged in the criminal information from the outset. Failure to do so can have drastic consequences, potentially reducing the penalty even in the most egregious cases of familial rape. This ruling underscores the fundamental importance of procedural due process, even when dealing with heinous crimes that evoke strong emotions.

    For prosecutors drafting informations in rape cases, especially those involving minors and familial relationships, meticulous attention to detail is paramount. The information must clearly state all elements of qualified rape, including the specific qualifying circumstances that elevate the crime beyond simple rape. This includes, but is not limited to, the age of the victim and the relationship between the victim and the offender when those factors are intended to qualify the offense and increase the penalty.

    Key Lessons:

    • Specificity in Charges: Criminal informations must explicitly state all qualifying circumstances for qualified rape, such as familial relationship.
    • Due Process is Paramount: Even in severe crimes, procedural rules and due process rights must be strictly observed.
    • Impact on Penalty: Failure to properly charge qualified rape can prevent the imposition of the maximum penalty, even if the qualifying circumstances are proven in court.
    • Prosecutorial Duty: Prosecutors bear the responsibility of ensuring informations are legally sound and fully inform the accused of the charges they face.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQS)

    Q: What is ‘qualified rape’ in Philippine law?

    A: Qualified rape is a more serious form of rape under Philippine law, punishable by death in certain circumstances. It occurs when rape is committed with specific qualifying circumstances, such as when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent.

    Q: What is a ‘criminal information’ and why is it important?

    A: A criminal information is the formal written accusation filed in court that initiates a criminal case. It is crucial because it informs the accused of the exact charges against them, ensuring their right to due process and allowing them to prepare a defense.

    Q: What does ‘due process’ mean in the context of criminal law?

    A: Due process is a constitutional right that ensures fairness in legal proceedings. In criminal law, it includes the right to be informed of the charges, the right to a fair trial, and the right to legal representation, among others.

    Q: In the Ramos case, why was the death penalty overturned?

    A: The death penalty was overturned because the criminal information only charged ‘simple rape’ and did not explicitly state the father-daughter relationship as a ‘qualifying circumstance’ necessary for qualified rape and the death penalty.

    Q: What should prosecutors learn from the Ramos case?

    A: Prosecutors must learn to be extremely precise and detailed when drafting criminal informations, especially in qualified rape cases. They must explicitly allege all qualifying circumstances in the information to ensure the proper penalty can be imposed.

    Q: Does this case mean the father in Ramos ‘got away with it’?

    A: No. Feliciano Ramos was still convicted of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, a very severe penalty in the Philippines. The Supreme Court simply corrected the procedural error in the imposition of the death penalty.

    Q: Where can I get legal help if I have questions about rape or criminal charges in the Philippines?

    A: ASG Law specializes in Criminal Law and Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.