JURISPRUDENCE

1. G.R. No. 180146

PO2 RUEL C. MONTOYA,
Petitioner,
- versus -
POLICE DIRECTOR REYNALDO P. VARILLA, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION, POLICE OFFICE and ATTY. RUFINO
JEFFREY L. MANERE, REGIONAL LEGAL AFFAIRS SERVICE,
Respondents.

Though procedural rules in administrative proceedings are less stringent and often
applied more liberally, administrative proceedings are not exempt from basic and
fundamental procedural principles, such as the right to due process in investigations and
hearings. The right to substantive and procedural due process is applicable to
administrative proceedings.[16]

Well-settled is the rule that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to
be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain ones side
or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained
of.[17] Unarguably, this rule, as it is stated, strips down administrative due process to its
most fundamental nature and sufficiently justifies freeing administrative proceedings from
the rigidity of procedural requirements. In particular, however, due process in
administrative proceedings has also been recognized to include the following: (1) the right
to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a
respondents legal rights; (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the
assistance of counsel, to present witnesses and evidence in ones favor, and to defend ones
rights; (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a
person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality;
and (4) a finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for
consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties
affected.[18]

Hence, even if administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are not

strictly bound by procedural requirements, they are still bound by law and equity to
observe the fundamental requirements of due process. Notice to enable the other party to
be heard and to present evidence is not a mere technicality or a trivial matter in any
administrative or judicial proceedings.[19] In the application of the principle of due process,
what is sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the denial of the
opportunity to be heard.

2. G.R. No. 186967

DIVINA PALAO, Petitioner
vs.
FLORENTINO INTERNATIONAL, INC., Respondent
 Section 3 of the Intellectual Property Office's Uniform Rules on Appeai25 specifies
the form through which appeals may be taken to the Director General:

Section 3. Appeal Memorandum. - The appeal shall be perfected by filing an appeal

memorandum in three (3) legible copies with proof of service to the Bureau Director and
the adverse party, if any, and upon payment of the applicable fee, Reference Code 127 or
128, provided in the IPO Fee Structure.
…

This rule is in keeping with the general principle that administrative bodies are not strictly
bound by technical rules of procedure:

[A]dministrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and
the rules obtaining in courts of law. Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial
powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the
observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases
presented before them. In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and
evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated
with due process in its strict judicial sense.27

In conformity with this liberality, Section 5(b) of the Intellectual Property Office's Uniform
Rules on Appeal expressly enables appellants, who failed to comply with Section 4' s formal
requirements, to subsequently complete their compliance:

Section 5. Action on the Appeal Memorandum - The Director General shall:

a) Order the adverse party if any, to file comment to the appeal memorandum within thirty
(30) days from notice and/or order the Bureau Director to file comment and/or transmit
the records within thirty (30) days from notice; or

b) Order the appellant/appellants to complete the formal requirements mentioned in

Section 4 hereof;

c) Dismiss the appeal for being patently without merit, Provided, that the dismissal shall be
outright if the appeal is not filed within the prescribed period or for failure of the appellant
to pay the required fee within the period of appeal. (Emphasis supplied)

 "a strict application of [the rule] is not called for":

 The rule should not be interpreted with such absolute literalness as to subvert its
own ultimate and legitimate objective which is the goal of all rules of procedure, that
is, to achieve justice as expeditiously as possible. A liberal application of the rule
may be justified where special circumstances or compelling reasons are present.
 It is reasonable, therefore-consistent with the precept of liberally applying
procedural rules in administrative proceedings, and with the room allowed by
jurisprudence for substantial compliance with respect to the rule on certifications of
non-forum shopping-to construe the error committed by respondent as a venial
lapse that should not be fatal to its cause. We see here no "wanton disregard of the
rules or [the risk of] caus[ing] needless delay in the administration of justice."52 On
the contrary, construing it as such will enable a full ventilation of the parties'
competing claims. As with Philippine Public School Teachers Association, we
consider it permissible to set aside, pro hac vice, the procedural defect. 53 Thus, we
sustain the ruling of the Court of Appeals.

3.