ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[
ICASIANO vs. AUTEA
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 15 2005.
G.R. No. 168192 (Eliza Icasiano vs. Arthur Autea, William D. Dar, Cesar M. Drilon, Manuel B. Gaite, and Jose T. Sulit Jr.)
For resolution is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Court of Appeals decision [1] cralaw dated 26 January 2005 which affirmed the Decision dated 26 May 2003 of Deputy Executive Secretary Arthur P. Autea of the Office of the President in O.P. No. 99-F-9138.
Facts of the case are as follows:
Petitioner Eliza Icasiano was awarded a Fishpond Lease Agreement (FLA) on 13 August 1979, by then Minister Jose J. Leido of the Ministry of Natural Resources, for a period of twenty-five (25) years to expire on 31 December 2003, covering an area of sixteen (16) hectares located at Barrio Mulawin, Calauag, Quezon.
On 10 May 1999, Acting Secretary of the Department of Agriculture William D. Dar issued an Order cancelling the FLA of petitioner on the ground of violation of the agreement, specifically, the occupation by squatters of a portion of the area covered by the FLA. Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied in a Resolution dated 05 May 2000, signed by Undersecretary Cesar M. Drilon of the Department of Agriculture.
Petitioner filed her Notice of Appeal directly to the Office of the President. On 26 May 2003, Deputy Executive Secretary Arthur P. Autea rendered a decision dismissing petitioner's appeal. A motion for reconsideration was filed but the same was likewise denied in an Order dated 18 July 2003.
Petitioner thereafter filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Court to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 78935. On 26 January 2005, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Her motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in the Order of the Court of Appeals dated 20 May 2005.
Hence, this petition.
At the outset, it must be noted that the petition is defective due to the following reasons: 1) it lacks an explanation for service by registered mail of copies of the petition; 2) it lacks duplicate originals or certified true copies of the questioned judgment and resolution denying the motion for reconsideration; 3) it lacks a verification and certification on non-forum shopping; and 4) the jurat in the affidavit of service did not indicate any competent evidence of affiant's identity.
On these grounds alone, the petition must be denied. We have time and again ruled that with respect specifically to the requirement of verification and certification of non-forum shopping, non-compliance therewith is a ground for outright dismissal of the petition for violation of Administrative Circular No. 04-94.
Moreover, petitioner raised anew the issue of denial of due process of law. Petitioner contends she was denied due process of law, as FLA No. 3050 was cancelled without prior notice and hearing.
We have consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. [2] cralaw
In the case at bar, petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the Department of Agriculture's order which adopted the recommendation of the Director of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources cancelling her FLA with the government. Petitioner even appealed the order denying her motion for reconsideration to the Office of the President. Indeed, she was afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain her side of the controversy. Clearly, she was not denied her right of due process.
Well established is the rule that the findings of administrative agencies are accorded not only respect but also finality when the decision or order is not tainted with unfairness or arbitrariness that would amount to grave abuse of discretion. [3] cralaw It is only upon a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion that the Courts will set aside decisions of government agencies entrusted with the regulation of activities coming under their special technical knowledge and training, [4] cralaw and such grave abuse of discretion is not present in the case at bar.
Finally, it is settled that in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, only questions of law, not of fact, may be raised before this Court. The factual findings of Administrative agencies that are affirmed by the Court of Appeals are conclusive upon and generally not reviewable by this Court. [5] cralaw We find no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the appellate court as these are amply supported by the evidence on record.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error committed by the Court of Appeals, the instant petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria with Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, concurring.
[2] cralaw Pantranco North Express, Inc. v. Standard Insurance Company, Inc., G.R. No. 140746, 16 March 2005, 453 SCRA 482.
[3] cralaw Cuerdo v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. L-84592, 27 October 1988, 166 SCRA 657.
[4] cralaw Villanueva v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 151987, 18 March 2005, 453 SCRA 782, citing Olaguer v. Domingo, G.R. No. 109666, 20 June 2001, 359 SCRA 78.
[5] cralaw Biteng v. Department of Interior and Local Government (Cordillera Administrative Region), G.R. No. 153894, 16 February 2005, 451 SCRA 520.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
