GR L 33237; (April, 1988) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33237 April 15, 1988
GREGORIO T. CRESPO, in His Capacity as Mayor of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija, petitioner, vs. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF NUEVA ECIJA and PEDRO T. WYCOCO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Gregorio T. Crespo was the elected Municipal Mayor of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. On January 25, 1971, private respondent Pedro T. Wycoco filed an administrative complaint against him for harassment, abuse of authority, and oppression. As required by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5185 , the petitioner submitted a written explanation to the respondent Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija.
On February 15, 1971, the Provincial Board conducted a hearing on the administrative case without notifying the petitioner or his counsel. During this hearing, private respondent Wycoco was allowed to present testimonial and documentary evidence ex parte. Solely based on this ex parte evidence, the Provincial Board issued Resolution No. 51, which ordered the preventive suspension of petitioner Crespo from his office as municipal mayor.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Provincial Board violated the petitioner’s right to due process by issuing the order of preventive suspension without affording him a hearing or opportunity to be heard.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner was denied due process. The Court emphasized that one’s employment or public office is a property right protected by the constitutional guarantee of due process of law. The fundamental elements of procedural due process include notice and a fair opportunity to be heard before a judgment is rendered.
The respondent Provincial Board’s issuance of the preventive suspension order was based exclusively on the ex parte evidence presented by the complainant. The Court found no indication that the written explanation submitted by the petitioner was ever considered by the Board. The Board’s contention that the petitioner’s counsel had requested a hearing but failed to appear was unsupported by evidence and could not justify the denial of a hearing. The Court cited precedent, stating that a judgment based only on ex parte evidence, rendered without hearing the opposing party’s evidence, violates the principles of fairness and the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge.”
However, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition as moot and academic. The records indicated that the petitioner was not elected to any public office in the local elections held on January 18, 1988. Consequently, the preliminary injunction issued earlier was lifted.