ANITA VILLA, PETITIONER, VS. MANUEL LAZARO, AS PRESIDENTIAL ASSISTANT FOR LEGAL AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, AND THE HUMAN SETTLEMENTS REGULATORY COM­MISSION, RESPONDENTS.

On January 18, 1980,
Anita Villa was granted a building permit to construct a funeral parlor at
Santiago Boulevard in Gen. Santos City.^[1] The permit was issued by the City Engineer
after the application was “processed by Engineer Dominador Solana of the
City Engineer’s Office, and on the strength of the Certification of Manuel
Sales, City Planning and Development Coordinator that the ‘project was in
consonance with the Land Use Plan of the City and within the full provision of
the Zoning Ordinance.'”^[2] With
financing obtained from the Development Bank of the Philippines, Villa
commenced construction of the building.

In October of that same
year, as the funeral parlor was nearing completion, a suit for injunction was
brought against Villa by Dr. Jesus Veneracion, the owner of St. Elizabeth
Hospital, standing about 132.36 meters from the funeral parlor.^[3]
The complaint sought the perpetual enjoinment of the construction because
allegedly violative of the Zoning Ordinance of General Santos City.^[4]
A status quo order was issued.

After appropriate proceedings and trial, judgment on the merits
was rendered on November 17, 1981, dismissing Veneracion’s complaint as well as
the counterclaim pleaded by Villa. The
Trial Court found that there was a falsified Zoning Ordinance,
containing a provision governing funeral parlors, which had been submitted to
and ratified by the Ministry of Human Settlements, but that ordinance had never
been passed by the Sangguniang Panlungsod; and that the genuine
Zoning Ordinance of General Santos City contained no prohibition whatever
relative to such parlors’ “distance from hospitals, whether public or
private.”^[5]
Villa then resumed construction of her building and completed it.^[6]

Veneracion did not appeal from this adverse judgment which therefore
became final. Instead, he brought the
matter up with the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. He lodged a complaint with that commission
praying “that the funeral parlor be relocated because it was near the St.
Elizabeth Hospital and Villa failed to secure the necessary locational
clearance.”^[7]
The complaint, as will at once be noted, is substantially the same as that
filed by him with the Court of First Instance and dismissed after trial. Furthermore, neither he nor the Commission,
as will hereafter be narrated, ever made known this second complaint to Villa
until much, much later, after the respondent Commission had rendered several
adverse rulings to her.^[8]

Two months after the rendition of the judgment against
Veneracion, or more precisely on January 22, 1982, Villa received a telegram
dated January 21 from Commissioner Raymundo R. Dizon of the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission reading as follows:^[9]

“THE HUMAN SETTLEMENT REGULATORY
COMMISSION REQUEST TRANSMITTAL OF PROOF OF LOCATIONAL CLEARANCE GRANTED BY THIS
OFFICE IMMEDIATELY UPON RECEIPT OF THIS ** NOT LATER THAN 21ST JANUARY 1982
REGARDING YOUR OWN GOING CONSTRUCTION OF A FUNERAL PARLOR AT SANTIAGO STREET
CORNER NATIONAL HIGHWAY GENERAL SANTOS CITY AN OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION TO THE
EFFECT FOLLOWS.”

On the same day, January 22, 1982, Villa sent Dizon a reply
telegram reading: “LOCATIONAL
CLEARANCE BASED ON CERTIFICATION OF CITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
AND HUMAN SETTLEMENT OFFICER, COPIES MAIL…”^[10]
This she did on January 27, 1982; under Registry Receipt No. 1227 (Gen. Santos
City Post Office),^[11]
Villa sent to Dizon –

1) the certification dated October 24, 1980 of Josefina E. Alaba
(Human Settlements Officer, Gen. Santos City) to the following effect:^[12]

” ** that per scrutiny of the
documents presented by Mrs. Anita Villa on her application for a Funeral Parlor
and inspection of lot no. 4997 along Santiago Boulevard where the building is
to be constructed, the undersigned guarantees that the application passed the
criteria of this office for this purpose;”

2) and the certification of Manuel O. Sales, City Planning and
Development Coordinator, dated December 27, 1979,^[13]
that:

” ** the proposed project (funeral Chapel) of Anita G. Villa,
located at Lot No. 4997 along Santiago Boulevard is in consonance with the Land
Use Plan of the City and within the full provision of the Zoning Ordinance.

On February 8, 1982 Villa received what was evidently the
“official communication” referred to in Commissioner Dizon’s telegram
of January 21, 1982, supra, an “Order to Present Proof of
Locational Clearance” dated January 20, 1982. Knowing this and “considering also that she ** (had) already
sent the (required) locational clearance on January 27, 1982,” Villa made
no response.^[14]

No doubt with no little discomfiture, Villa received on June 2, 1982
a “Show Cause” Order dated April 28, 1982, signed by one Ernesto L.
Mendiola in behalf of the Commission, 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.^[15]
The order made no reference whatever to the documents she had already sent by
registered mail as early as January 27, 1982. The following day Villa sent a telegram to Commissioner Dizon reading as
follows:^[16]

“LOCATIONAL CLEARANCE WAS MAILED THRU
REGISTERED MAIL REGISTRY RECEIPT NUMBER 1227 DATED JANUARY 27, 1982, SENDING
AGAIN THRU REGISTERED MAIL REGISTRY RECEIPT NO. 6899 JUNE 3, 1982.”

On the same day, she also sent to
Commissioner Dizon by registered mail (Reg. Receipt No. 6899), as indicated in
her telegram, the same certifications earlier sent by her also by registered
mail (Reg. Receipt No. 1227), supra.

If she thought the affair had thus been satisfactorily ended, she
was sadly in error, of which she was very shortly made aware. On July 27, 1982, she received an Order of
Commissioner Dizon dated June 29, 1982 imposing on her a fine of P10,000.00 and
requiring her to cease operations until further orders from his office.^[17]
The order made no mention of the documents she had transmitted by registered
mail on January 27, 1982 and June 3, 1982, or to her telegrams on the
matter. Villa forthwith went to see the
Deputized Zoning Administrator of General Santos City, Isidro M. Olmedo. The latter issued to her a “CERTIFICATE
OF ZONING COMPLIANCE” No. 0087, dated July 28, 1982, inter alia attesting
that the land on which Villa’s “proposed commercial building” was
located in a vicinity in which the “dominant land uses” were
“commercial/institutional/residential,” and the project conformed
“WITH THE LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY.”^[18] This
certificate Villa sent on the same day to Commissioner Dizon by registered mail
(Reg. Receipt No. 1365 [Gen. Santos City P.O.]).^[19] It is noteworthy that this Certificate
No. 0087 is entirely consistent with the earlier certification dated November
27, 1979 of City Planning & Development Coordinator Sales that Villa’s
funeral chapel was “in consonance with the Land Use Plan of the City and
within the full provision of the Zoning Ordinance,” supra,^[20] and that of Human Settlements Officer
Alaba dated October 24, 1980, supra,^[21] that Villa’s “application for a
Funeral Parlor * * passed the criteria of this office for this purpose.”
Villa could perhaps be understandably considered justified in believing, at
this time, that the matter had finally been laid to rest.

One can then only imagine her consternation and shock when she
was served on November 16, 1982 with a writ of execution signed by Commissioner
Dizon under date of October 19, 1982 in implementation of his Order of June 29,
1982, above mentioned, imposing a fine of P10,000.00 on her. Again, this Order, like the others issuing
from respondent Commission, made no advertence whatever to the documents Villa
had already sent to respondent Commission by registered mail on January 27,
June 29, and July 28, 1982, or her telegrams. Be this as it may, she lost no time in moving for reconsideration, by
letter dated November 22, 1982 to which she attached copies of the documents
she had earlier sent to Commissioner Dizon, viz.: (1) her telegram of January 22, 1982,^[22]
(2) the certification of the City Planning & Development Coordinator,^[23]
(3) the certification of the Human Settlements Officer,^[24]
(4) the telegram dated June 3, 1982,^[25] and (5)
the Certificate of Zoning Compliance dated July 28, 1982.^[26]
In addition, Villa executed a special power of attorney on December 10, 1982
authorizing Anastacio Basas to “deliver to the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission ** all my papers or documents required by the said
Commission as requisites for the issuance to me and/or the Funeraria Villa **
(of) the locational clearance for the construction of my funeral parlor along
Santiago boulevard, General Santos City **,”^[27] pursuant to which on December 15,
1982, said Basas delivered to the Commission (Enforcement Office), thru one
Betty Jimenez,^[28] copies of Villa’s (1) building plan,
(2) building permit,^[29] (3)
occupancy permit,”^[30] and
(4) “the decision of the Court case involving the funeral parlor.”^[31]

By Order dated January 21, 1983, Commissioner Dizon denied the
reconsideration prayed for by Villa in her letter of November 22, 1982, opining
that the plea for reconsideration had been presented out of time,^[32]
and the order of June 29, 1982 had become final and executory.^[33]

Villa then filed an appeal with “the Commission Proper,
which denied it in an order dated September 7, 1983, also on account of the
finality of the order of the Commissioner for Enforcement. Her subsequent motion for reconsideration **
(was also) denied in the order of June 7, 1984 **.”^[34]

Villa then sought to take an appeal to the Office of the
President. The matter was acted on by
the Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, respondent Manuel M. Lazaro. In a Resolution dated September 21, 1984,
respondent Lazaro denied the “appeal and (Villa’s) motion for extension of
time to submit an appeal memorandum.”^[35] It
is noteworthy that Lazaro’s resolution, like the orders of Commissioner Dizon
and respondent Commission, contains no reference whatsoever to the telegrams
and documents sent by Villa to the latter on various occasions evidencing her
prompt responses to the orders of Dizon and the Commission, and her substantial
compliance with the general requirement for her to present the requisite
clearances or documents of authority for the erection of her funeral
parlor. The very skimpy narration of
facts set out in the resolution limits itself merely to a citation of the
orders of Commissioner Dizon and the Commission; and on that basis, the
resolution simplistically concludes that “no appeal was seasonably taken
by Mrs. Anita Villa from the order of June 29, 1982, of the HSRC ** (and)
(a)ccordingly, said order became final for which reason a writ of execution was
issued ** (which) finality was confirmed in the subsequent orders of HSRC,
dated January 21, 1983 , and September 7, 1983.”

Villa filed a motion for reconsideration dated October 19, 1984,
this time through counsel, contending that the resolution of September 21, 1984
was “not in conformity with the law and the evidence” and deprived
her of due process of law.^[36] But
this, too, was denied (with finality) by respondent Lazaro, in a Resolution
dated December 14, 1984 which again omitted to the several attempts of Villa to
comply with the order of Commissioner Dizon to present the requisite documents
of authority anent her funeral parlor and adverted merely to the orders
emanating from Dizon and the respondent Commission.^[37]

These facts present a picture of official incompetence or gross
negligence and abdication of duty, if not of active bias and partiality, that
is most reprehensible. The result has
been to subvert and put to naught the judgment rendered in a suit regularly
tried and decided by a court of justice, to deprive one party of rights
confirmed and secured thereby and to accord her adversary, in a different
forum, the relief he had sought and been denied in said case.

There is no question that Dr. Jesus Veneracion had resorted to
the proscribed practice of forum-shopping when, following adverse judgment of
the Court of First Instance in his suit to enjoin the construction of Villa’s
funeral parlor, he had, instead of appealing that judgment, lodged a complaint
with the respondent Commission on substantially the same ground litigated in
the action. Also undisputed is that
while the respondent Commission took cognizance of the complaint and by
telegram required Villa to submit a locational clearance, said respondent did
not then or at any time before issuance of the order and writ of execution
complained of bother to put her on notice, formally or otherwise, of
Veneracion’s complaint. It was
therefore wholly natural for Villa to assume, as it is apparent she did, that
no formal adversarial inquiry was underway and that the telegram was what it
purported to be on its face: a
routinary request, issued motu proprio, to submit proof of compliance
with locational requirements. And such
assumption was doubtless fortified by petitioner’s knowledge that she already
had in her favor a judgment on the subject against which her opponent had taken
no recourse by appeal or otherwise.

Neither is there any serious dispute about what transpired
thereafter, as already recounted and, in particular, about the fact that in
response to that first and the subsequent demands sent by Commissioner Dizon,
Villa not once but thrice furnished the Commission by registered mail
with copies, variously, of official documents certifying to her compliance with
the pertinent locational, zoning and land use requirements and plans. None of these documents appears to have made
any impression on Commissioner Dizon, whose show-cause order of April 28, 1982
and order of June 29, 1982 imposing a P10,000.00 fine on petitioner made no
mention of them whatsoever. Not even
Villa’s submission of said documents a fourth time to support her motion for
reconsideration of a writ of execution could move Commissioner Dizon to stop
acting as if said documents did not exist at all. True, only copies had been submitted, but ordinary prudence and
fairness dictated at least some inquiry into their authenticity, and this would
not have posed any great difficulty considering their purportedly official
origins.

The mischief done by Commissioner Dizon’s baffling failure (or
obdurate refusal) even to acknowledge the existence of the documents furnished
by petitioner was perpetuated by the “Commission proper” and
respondent Lazaro (Presidential Assistant on Legal Affairs), who threw out petitioner’s
appeals with no reference whatsoever thereto and thereby kept in limbo evidence
that would have been decisive.

The Solicitor General’s
brief Comment of September 3, 1985^[38]
neither admits nor denies Villa’s claim of having submitted the required
documents; it avoids any reference thereto and deals mainly with the question
of the timeliness of her appeal to the respondent Commission and the propriety
of the present petition. From such
silence and upon what the record otherwise clearly shows, the Court remains in
no doubt of the verity of said petitioner’s claim that she had more than once
submitted those requisite documents.

There was absolutely no excuse for initiating what is held out as
an administrative proceedings against Villa without informing her of the
complaint which initiated the case; for conducting that inquiry in the most
informal manner by means only of communications requiring submission of certain
documents, which left the impression that compliance was all that was expected
of her and with which directives she promptly and religiously complied;
assuming that one of the documents thus successively submitted had been
received, but given the fact that on at least two occasions, their transmission
had been preceded by telegrams announcing that they would follow by mail, for
failing to call Villa’s attention to their non-receipt or to make any other
attempt to trace their whereabouts; for ruling against Villa on the spurious
premise that she had failed to submit the documents required; and for maintaining
to the very end that pretense of lack of compliance even after being presented
with a fourth set of documents and the decision in the court case upholding her
right to operate her funeral parlor in its questioned location.

Whether born of ineptitude, negligence, bias or malice, such
lapses are indefensible. No excuse can
be advanced for avoiding all mention or consideration of certifications issued
by respondent Commission’s own officials in General Santos City, which included
the very relevant one executed by Human Settlements Officer Josefina E. Alaba
that petitioner’s application for a funeral parlor at the questioned location
had “* * passed the criteria of this office for this purpose.”^[39]
It was thus not even necessary for petitioner to bring that document to the
notice of the Commission which, together with Commissioner Dizon, was
chargeable with knowledge of its own workings and of all acts done in the
performance of duty by its officials and employees. Petitioner is plainly the victim of either gross ignorance or
negligence or abuse of power, or a combination of both.

All of the foregoing translate to a denial of due process against
which the defense of failure to take timely appeal will not avail. Well-esconced in our jurisprudence is the
rule:

“* * that 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 due process is
recognized to include (a) the right to notice, be it actual or constructive, of
the institution of the proceedings that may affect a person’s 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.”,^[40]

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.

The Court finds no merit in the proposition that relief is
foreclosed to Villa because her motion for reconsideration of November 22, 1982
was filed out of time. The very informal
character of the so-called administrative proceedings, an informality for which
Commissioner Dizon himself was responsible and which he never sought to
rectify, militates against imposing strict observance of the limiting periods
applicable to proceedings otherwise properly initiated and regularly
conducted. Indeed, considering the
rather “off-the-cuff” manner in which the inquiry was carried out, it
is not even certain that said petitioner is chargeable with tardiness in
connection with any incident thereof. What the record shows is that she invariably responded promptly, at
times within a day or two of receiving them, to orders of communications sent
to her. At any rate, the Court will not
permit the result of an administrative proceeding riddled with the serious
defects already pointed out to negate an earlier judgment on the merits on the
same matter regularly rendered by competent court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The proceedings complained of are ANNULLED
and all orders, writs and resolutions issued in the course thereof, beginning
with the show-cause order of June 2, 1982 up to and including the challenged
Resolutions of September 21, 1984 and December 14, 1984 of respondent
Presidential Assistant Manuel Lazaro are VACATED and SET ASIDE, for having been
taken and/or issued in violation of petitioner’s right to due process, without
pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Gancayco, Griño-Aquino, and
Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Named, as might be expected, “Funeraria Villa”

^[2]
Rollo, p. 34 (Decision dated Nov. 17, 1981 of Hon. Pedro Samson C.
Animas, Judge of the then Court of First Instance of South Cotabato (Branch
One) in Special Civil Case No. 96 entitled, “Jesus Veneracion vs. Anita
Villa”

^[3]
Id., p. 36

^[4]
Id., pp. 34, 36

^[5]
Id., p. 40

^[6]
Id., p. 13

^[7] Id.,
p. 27 (p. 1 of Resolution of respondent Lazaro dated Sept. 21, 1984)

^[8]
Id., p. 32 (p. 2, Motion for Reconsideration dated Oct. 19, 1984)

^[9] Id., p. 14

^[10] Id., p. 114

^[11]
Id., p. 113-A

^[12]
Id., p. 114 (Annex H)

^[13]
Id., p. 115 (Annex I)

^[14]
Id., pp. 14-15

^[15]
Id., pp. 15, 179

^[16]
Id., pp. 15, 116, 117

^[17]
Id., p. 15

^[18]
Id., pp. 15-16, 118

^[19]
Id., p. 119 (Annex K-3)

^[20]
Footnote 10

^[21]
Footnote 11

^[22]
Footnotes, 10, 20

^[23]
Footnote 13

^[24]
Footnote 12

^[25]
Footnote 16

^[26]
Footnote 17

^[27]
Rollo, p. 143 (Annex U)

^[28]
Id., pp. 171, 145: Reverse side
(Annex W-I) of Routing Slip (Annex W)

^[29]
Id., p. 121 (Annex M)

^[30]
Id., p. 126 (Annex O)

^[31]
Id., p. 127 (Annex Q)

^[32]
Id., p. 169

^[33]
Id., p. 28

^[34]
Id., p. 28

^[35]
Id., pp. 27-28

^[36]
Id., pp. 31-33

^[37]
Id., pp. 29-30

^[38]
Rollo, pp. 72-80

^[39]
See supra, Footnote 10

^[40]
Air Manila, Inc. vs. Balatbat, 38 SCRA 489, 492 citing Asprec vs.
Itchon, 16 SCRA 921, Garcia vs.
Executive Secretary, 6 SCRA 1 and Ang Tibay vs. CIR, 69 Phil.
635