Nov 21 Cases Admin Law

Besaga vs. Acosta, G.R. No. 194061, April 20, 2015

Brief Facts:

Respondents challenged the petitioner's Special Land Use Permit (SLUP) application before the
DENR. The RED issued the order giving due course to the petitioner's SLUP application and rejecting the
respondents' SLUP application.

Respondent spouses, instead of filing a Notice of Appeal to the DENR Regional Executive
Director (RED), filed a Memorandum of Appeal to the DENR Secretary, and not to the RED, within the
fifteen (15)-day reglementary period but paid the appeal fee beyond the fifteen (15)-day period.

According to petitioner, these violate Section 1 (a) of DAO No. 87 which requires the filing of a
Notice of Appeal and the payment of the appeal fee within the reglementary period.

Issue:
 Is the liberality of procedure in administrative actions subject to any limitation?
o YES.
Ruling:
Administrative rules of procedure should be construed liberally in order to promote their object
to assist the parties in obtaining a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their respective claims
and defenses. The liberality of procedure in administrative actions, however, is subject to limitations
imposed by the requirements of due process.

Administrative due process means reasonable opportunity to be heard. Where due process is
present, the administrative decision is generally sustained.

Thus, while this Court allows liberal construction of administrative rules of procedure to enhance
fair trial and expedite justice, we are keenly aware that liberal construction has no application when
due process is violated. The crucial point of inquiry in cases involving violation of administrative rules of
procedure is whether such violation disregards the basic tenets of administrative due process. If the
gravity of the violation of the rules is such that due process is breached, the rules of procedure should
be strictly applied. Otherwise, the rules are liberally construed.

Issue:
 Can the liberal construction be applied on appeal reglementary period as in this case?
o YES.

Ruling:
We uphold liberality.
First, there is no violation of due process. In fact, to sustain the position of the petitioner and strictly
apply Section l(a) of DAO No. 87 may violate the respondent spouses right to due process as this would
result to a denial of their right to appeal. We stress that the respondent spouses appealed within the
reglementary period, albeit not directly to the RED. They also paid the full appeal fees although beyond
the 15-day period.
We hold that these procedural lapses were neither prejudicial nor unfair to the petitioner.
Notably, both the petitioner and the RED were furnished copies of the Memorandum of Appeal. The
filing of the Memorandum of Appeal had the same practical effect had a Notice of Appeal been filed:
inform the RED that his order is sought to be appealed to the DENR Secretary.

Clearly, the petitioner participated in every stage of the administrative proceeding. Her right to be heard
was not compromised despite the wrong mode of appeal. As to the late payment of the appeal fee,
suffice it to say that this Court has disregarded late payment of appeal fees at the administrative
level in order to render substantial justice.

Second, the liberal construction of DAO No. 87 would serve its purpose, i.e., grant a party the right to
appeal decisions of the Regional Offices to the DENR Secretary in order for the latter to review the
findings of the former. To disallow appeal in this case would not only work injustice to the respondent
spouses, it would deny the DENR Secretary the opportunity to correct, at the earliest opportunity,
"errors of judgment" of his subordinates.

Finally, the petitioner failed to convince us why liberality should not be applied. The petitioner does not
claim that her right to due process was violated as a result of the wrong mode of appeal but merely asks
this Court to strictly construe DAO No. 87 and affirm the orders of the RED, which according to her, have
attained finality.

Between strict construction of administrative rules of procedure for their own sake and their liberal
application in order to enhance fair trials and expedite justice, we uphold the latter. After all,
administrative rules of procedure do not operate in a vacuum. The rules facilitate just, speedy and
inexpensive resolution of disputes before administrative bodies. The better policy is to apply these rules
in a manner that would give effect rather than defeat their intended purpose.

Maynilad vs. DENR, G.R. No. 206823, August 6, 2019

Brief Facts:

DENR EMB- RIII, filed a complaint before the DENR’s Pollution Adjudication Board (PAB) charging
MWSS, Maynilad, and Manila Water with failure to provide, install, operate, and maintain adequate
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for sewerage system resulting in the degraded quality and beneficial
use of the receiving bodies of water leading to Manila Bay and which has directly forestalled the DENR’s
mandate to implement the operational plan for the rehabilitation and restoration of Manila Bay and its
river tributaries.

Issue:
 Was Maynilad denied due process when SENR imposed a fine without a valid complaint?
o NO

Ruling:

The Notice Of Violation (NOV) issued by the SENR stated the charges against petitioners, gave a
directive to attend the technical conference for the simplification of issues and stipulations of facts, and
apprised them of the liability imposed on violators under Section 28 of the Clean Water Act. Hence,
petitioners were notified of the charges against them, were given an opportunity to be heard during a
technical conference and were informed of the penalty for possible violations of the Act. Demonstrably,
the SENR, upon recommendation of the PAB, validly imposed the fine after the charge, hearing, and due
deliberation.

Service of justice, not technical subservience, is the end pursued by the rules of procedure. In
administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so
charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process.
Once this purpose has been fulfilled, despite trivial deviations from the rules, and for as long as a party
has been meaningfully heard or at the very least afforded the chance to be heard, any finding fairly arrived
upon by the administrative body will hold and shall not be disregarded.

In any case, whatever procedural lapse that may have transpired during the proceedings before
the PAB and the SENR had already been cured when the MWSS, Maynilad, and Manila Water all moved
for reconsideration of the SENR’s Orders. Procedural due process, as applied to administrative
proceedings, means a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side, or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.