G.R. No. L-72870 February 23, 1988
TEODORO R. PULIDO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. MANUEL M. LAZARO, in his capacity as Presidential Assistant for Legal Affairs, Office of the President, THE HON. GERONIMO Z. VELASCO, ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teodoro Pulido was the authorized dealer of a Shell gasoline station under a sublease and a certificate from the Bureau of Energy Utilization (BEU). In 1976, he authorized Virgilio Rosal to operate the station for a monthly fee, later selling his rights and equipment to Rosal and executing a special power of attorney for its administration. Pulido subsequently revoked the authority, alleging Rosal sold diluted gasoline, and filed an unlawful detainer case to reclaim the station. The city court dismissed the complaint, upholding the deed of sale and finding no lease relationship. Pulido did not appeal this decision.
Shell later applied with the BEU to replace Pulido with Rosal as the authorized dealer, submitting the city court’s decision. The BEU granted the application. Pulido challenged this, claiming denial of due process. The BEU dismissed his complaint on grounds including res judicata, a decision reversed by the Minister of Energy but reinstated by the Office of the President through respondent Manuel Lazaro. Pulido elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Office of the President committed reversible error in reinstating the BEU decision dismissing Pulido’s complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The legal logic rests on two pillars: the finality of the prior judicial decision and the absence of a due process violation. First, Pulido’s claim to the dealership is untenable. His original contract with Shell had expired, and he had sold his rights to Rosal. The city court’s decision in the ejectment case, which affirmed this sale and found no lease, became final due to Pulido’s failure to appeal. That judgment, right or wrong, is binding on him and precludes relitigation of his proprietary claims over the station. Second, his allegation of denial of due process is unfounded. The record demonstrates Pulido was afforded multiple opportunities to be heard. He actively participated by filing a letter-complaint and a motion for reconsideration with the BEU, appealing to the Minister of Energy, filing an opposition to a motion for reconsideration, and submitting motions in the Office of the President. The Court noted he even waived filing a final reply. Therefore, the administrative proceedings complied with due process requirements. The Office of the President correctly upheld the BEU’s dismissal.