G.R. No. L-44251 May 31, 1977
Felix Montemayor, petitioner, vs. Araneta University Foundation, Juan Salcedo, Jr., Tomas David, Martin Celino, Marcelo Amiana, as Members of the Panel of Investigators, Members of the Board of Trustees, Fr. Romeo Pelayo and the Honorable Secretary of Labor, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felix Montemayor was a full-time professor and head of the Humanities and Psychology Department at Araneta University Foundation. On April 17, 1974, a complaint for immorality was lodged against him by the University Chaplain. The University President created an investigative committee. The first hearing on April 24, 1974, was attended by petitioner and the complainant with witnesses. Petitioner sought and was granted a postponement. At the subsequent hearing on May 3, he was furnished a copy of an affidavit from a witness and cross-examined the witnesses against him. With the assistance of counsel, he filed a motion to dismiss and later submitted his own affidavit. The committee found him morally responsible and recommended demotion.
Subsequently, new charges for conduct unbecoming a faculty member were filed by other individuals in November 1974. A new committee was appointed, and petitioner was preventively suspended. His motion to postpone the new hearings was denied, and the proceedings continued in his absence, with witnesses testifying. This second committee found the charges sufficiently established, detailing specific immoral advances, and recommended his separation. The University dismissed him effective November 15, 1974, and filed an application for clearance to terminate his employment with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s dismissal was effected with a denial of procedural due process.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that procedural due process was observed. The legal logic centers on the constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and academic freedom, which do not preclude dismissal for a just cause provided due process is complied with. The Court examined the detailed record presented by the Solicitor General, which petitioner did not specifically refute. The process afforded to Montemayor included: (1) notice of the charges through the formal complaints; (2) opportunity to be heard, as he attended the initial hearing, was granted a postponement, cross-examined witnesses, and filed pleadings with the aid of counsel for the first set of charges; and (3) the findings and recommendations of the investigative committees which formed the basis for the dismissal action.
For the second set of charges, while the hearing proceeded in his absence after his motion for postponement was denied, the Court found that the Secretary of Labor correctly considered the totality of the proceedings before the university and the subsequent review by labor agencies. The Secretary’s decision, which set aside the NLRC’s reinstatement order and found the dismissal justified, was supported by evidence that the parties were fully heard on their contentions. The offer and requirement to pay accrued back wages further indicated a considered review. Therefore, no denial of due process occurred, and certiorari did not lie to overturn the factual findings and the Secretary’s exercise of jurisdiction, which found the dismissal to be for a valid cause.