SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246210. July 29, 2019.]
ROBINSONS HANDYMAN, INC., petitioner, vs.DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY-FAIR TRADE ENFORCEMENT BUREAU-ADJUDICATION DIVISION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 July 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246210 (Robinsons Handyman, Inc. v. Department of Trade and Industry-Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau-Adjudication Division)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 27, 2018 Decision 2 and the March 20, 2019 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 150935 for failure of petitioner Robinson's Handyman, Inc. (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in affirming the March 1, 2017 Order 4 of public respondent Department of Trade and Industry-Fair Trade Enforcement Bureau-Adjudication Division (DTI-FETB Adjudication Division).
As correctly held by the CA, the DTI-FETB Adjudication Division did not commit grave abuse of discretion because petitioner was not deprived of its right to due process. 5 The essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 6 In the instant case, petitioner was given the opportunity to be heard, given sufficient constructive notice of the case against it, and was even able to avail of the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration, 7 thus, the requirements of due process were satisfied.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-37.
2.Id. at 44-61. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Danton Q. Bueser and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.
3.Id. at 63-64.
4.Id. at 102-106. Approved by the Chief of Adjudication Division Genaro C. Jacob.
5. See id. at 58-59.
6.Ombudsman v. Conti, G.R. No. 221296, February 22, 2017, 818 SCRA 528, 539-540.
7. Any seeming defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration. (See Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Puedan, Jr., G.R. No. 220617, January 30, 2017, 816 SCRA 243, 255, citing Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission, 524 Phil. 271, 278 [2006]. See also rollo, pp. 59-60.)