63. VILLA vs.

LAZARO DOCTRINE: Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the due process requirements in investigations and trials. An earlier judgment on the merits by a competent court cannot be negated by a result of administrative proceedings. FACTS: Petitioner was granted a building permit issued by the City Engineer to construct a funeral parlor. The court rendered a judgment in favor of the petitioner. Following the adverse decision of the court, respondent, instead of appealing the judgment lodged a complaint with the Human Sttlement Regulatory Commission (HSRC) on substantially the same ground litigated in the action relative parlors distance from hospitals. Petitioner received a telegram from the HSRC through its Commissioner requesting transmittal of proof of location clearance granted by the office. The petitioner sent a telegram containing the required locational clearance. Subsequently, the petitioner received a Show Cause order requiring her to show cause why a fine should not be imposed on her or a cease-and-desist order issued against her for her failure to show proof of locational clearance. In spite of her communication that she had already mailed all the necessary documents, he was still fined at the amount of P 10,000.00 and was required to cease operations. The petitioner filed for a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Her appeals to the Commission, and subsequently to the Office of the President, were likewise denied. It must be stressed that neither the respondent nor the Commission ever made known the complaint ledged by the respondent to the petitioner until much later, after the Commissioner has rendered several adverse rulings against her. ISSUE: Was the petitioner denied of due process against which the defense of failure of AV to take timely appeal will not avail? HELD:

All of the foregoing translate to a denial of due process against which the defense of failure to take timely appeal will not avail. Administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation of certain basic and fundamental procedural principles, such as the due process requirements in investigations and trials. And this administrative process is recognized to include: (a0 the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of the institution of the proceedings that may affect a persons legal right; (b) reasonable opportunity to appear and defend his rights, introduce witnesses and relevant evidence in his favor; (c) a tribunal so constituted as to give him reasonable assurance of honesty and impartiality, and one of competent jurisdiction; and (d) a finding or decision by that tribunal supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the records or disclosed to the parties affected. And it being clear that some, at least, of those essential elements did not obtain or were not present in the proceedings complained of, any judgment rendered, or order issued, therein was null and void, could never become final and could be attacked in any appropriate proceeding. Also, an earlier judgment on the merits by a competent court cannot be negated by a result of administrative proceedings. What the record shows is that the petitioner responded promptly to orders and communications sent to her. At any rate, this court will not permit the result of an administrative proceeding riddled with serious defects already pointed out to negate an earlier judgment on the merits on the same matter regularly rendered by competent court.