Due process is opportunity to be heard; G. R. No. 190795

G. R. No. 190795

Excerpts:

"Where opportunity to be heard either through oral arguments or through pleadings is granted, there is no denial of due process. It must not be overlooked that prior to the issuance of the assailed Decision, petitioners were given several opportunities to attend the hearings and to present all their pleadings and evidence in the MAP₂₀₁₀ case. Petitioners voluntarily failed to appear in most of those hearings.

Although it is true that the ERC erred in prematurely issuing its Decision, its subsequent act of ordering petitioners to file their comments on Mallillin’s MR cured this defect. We have held that any defect in the observance of due process requirements is cured by the filing of a MR.[27] Thus, denial of due process cannot be invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on his MR.[28] Even though petitioners never filed a MR, the fact that they were still given notice of Mallillin’s filing of a MR and the opportunity to file their comments thereto makes immaterial ERC’s failure to admit their comment in the MAP₂₀₁₀ case. After all, petitioners’ allegations in their unfiled comment could have still, easily and just as effectively, been raised in the MAP₂₀₁₀ case by incorporating the arguments in the comment to be filed in the MR case. It must be remembered that the standard of due process impressed upon administrative tribunals allows a certain degree of latitude as long as fairness is not ignored.[29]

The opportunity granted by the ERC of, technically, allowing petitioners to finally be able to file their comment in the case, resolves the procedural irregularity previously inflicted upon petitioners.

We find that there has been no denial of due process and that any irregularity in the premature issuance of the assailed Decision has been remedied by the ERC through its Order which gave petitioners the right to participate in the hearing of the MR filed by Mallillin. "