04/02/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Besides, the detailed findings on the failure of respondent to implement its CDMP under its IFMA, as shown by the November 6, 1998 Report of the Evaluation Team and the Memoranda dated April 7, 1999 and April 21, 1999, together with all its attachments, belie respondent's claim that there was no actual evaluation and assessment that took place on October 23, 1998. That the Evaluation Report was dated November 6, 1998 does not conclusively show that the evaluation was actually held on that date. Neither was this properly proven by the Memoranda of RED Mendoza which stated that the evaluation was conducted on November 6, 1998, since RED Mendoza could have been merely misled into such an assumption because of the date of the Evaluation Report. The sweeping denials made by the IFMA representatives and their self-serving accomplishment reports cannot prevail over the actual inspection conducted, the results of which are shown by documentary proof. Respondent, likewise, cannot insist that, pursuant to Section 35 of IFMA No. R-9040, it should have been given notice of its breach of the IFMA and should have been given 30 days therefrom to remedy the breach. It is worthy to note that Section 35 uses the word "may" which must be interpreted as granting petitioner the discretion whether or not to give such notice and allow the option to remedy the breach. In this case, despite the lack of any specific recommendation from the Evaluation Team for the cancellation of the IFMA, DENR Secretary Cerilles deemed it proper to cancel the IFMA due to the extent and the gravity of respondent's violations. It is also futile for respondent to claim that it is entitled to an arbitration under Section 36 of IFMA No. R-9-040 before the license agreement may be canceled. A reading of the said Section shows that the dispute should be based on the provisions of the IFMA to warrant a referral to arbitration of an irreconcilable conflict between the IFMA holder and the DENR Secretary. In this case, the cancellation was grounded on Section 26 of DAO No. 97-04, particularly respondent's failure to implement the approved CDMP and its failure to implement or adopt agreements made with communities and other relevant sectors. The contrary notwithstanding, what remains is that respondent never refuted the findings of the Evaluation Team when given the opportunity to do so but waited until IFMA No. R-9-040 was already cancelled before it made its vigorous objections as to the conduct of the evaluation, harping only on its alleged right to due process. Indeed, respondent was given the opportunity to contest the findings that caused the cancellation of its IFMA when it moved to reconsider the Order of cancellation and when it filed its appeal and motion for reconsideration before the OP. The essence of due process is simply an 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. What the law prohibits is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard; hence, a party cannot feign denial of due process where he had been afforded the opportunity to present his side. [36] WHEREFORE, the Decision dated October 18, 2001 and the Resolution dated July 24, 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59194 are REVERSED and SET elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/46832 13/16