G.R. No. L-40872, December 5, 1978
Melecia M. Macabuhay vs. Hon. Juan L. Manuel, Secretary of Education and Culture, et al.

FACTS

Petitioner Melecia M. Macabuhay was the Division Superintendent of Schools for Batangas I. An administrative complaint was filed against her. Initially, the Secretary of Education and Culture rendered a decision considering her resigned. She challenged this in G.R. No. L-38568, alleging denial of due process. That case was dismissed after the parties agreed to a modus operandi for a reinvestigation, ensuring a fair hearing under legal procedures. While this reinvestigation was pending, a reorganization under Presidential Decree No. 1 merged Divisions I and II of Batangas into one. Anticipating the appointment of respondent Galo Manalo (Superintendent of Batangas II) to the new consolidated position, Macabuhay filed the instant petition. She sought to prohibit the permanent appointment to the new post pending her administrative case and, if exonerated, to compel her appointment to it.
During the pendency of this case, the President directed department heads to submit lists of officials facing administrative charges. The Secretary of Education included Macabuhay’s name. Subsequently, during a public address, the President announced a purge of undesirable officials. Macabuhay’s name was published among those purged from the Department of Education. The respondents then argued the case was moot, as she had been dismissed by presidential action and had, in any event, reached compulsory retirement age.

ISSUE

Whether the inclusion of petitioner Macabuhay in the list of purged officials, leading to her dismissal, constituted a denial of due process.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found the supplemental petition meritorious. The inclusion of Macabuhay’s name in the list submitted to the President, which formed the basis for her purge, was a flagrant violation of due process and the specific agreement in the prior case (G.R. No. L-38568). That agreement explicitly guaranteed her a continued administrative investigation conducted with formalities, under legal rules, and ensuring a fair and impartial hearing. By submitting her name while the reinvestigation was still ongoing and had not reached a legitimate conclusion, the Secretary of Education acted oppressively and denied her the opportunity to defend herself and clear her name. The Court noted the purge, while well-intentioned, caused injustices in cases like this where charges were not fully investigated.
The Court declared her inclusion in the purge list and the consequent separation as null and void. Since she had reached compulsory retirement age, her retirement was to be given due course solely on that ground, as if the administrative case had been concluded without a valid finding of guilt. Her record must reflect retirement by age, not dismissal by the purge. The main petition for appointment was rendered moot by her retirement, but the supplemental plea for due process relief was granted.