a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer.
Montemayor v. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321 (1977)
Whether or not Montemayor was absolutely denied of due process in the proceedings relating to his dismissal from AUF
In procedural due process, there must be a hearing before condemnation, with the investigation to proceed in an orderly manner, and judgment to be rendered only after such inquiry. Academic due process, a term coined, is a system of procedure designed to yield the best possible judgment when an adverse decision against a professor may be the consequence with stress on the clear, orderly, and fair way of reaching a conclusion. Every university or college teacher should be entitled before dismissal or demotion, to have the charges against him stated in writing, in specific terms and to have a fair trial on these charges before a special or permanent judicial committee of the faculty or by the faculty at large. At such trial the teacher accused should have full opportunity to present evidence. Herein, the procedure followed in the first investigation of Montemayor (June 1974) satisfied the procedure due process requisite. The second investigation (November 1974), however, did not. The motion for postponement therein was denied, the hearing proceeded as scheduled in the absence of Montemayor, and the committee lost no time in submitting its report finding the charges against Montemayor to have been sufficiently established and recommending his removal. The deficiency, however, was remedied, as Montemayor was able to present his case before the Labor Commission. Denial of due process happened only in the proceeding he had before the investigating committees and not in the proceedings before the NLRC wherein he was given the fullest opportunity to present his case, the latter being the subject matter of the petition for certiorari. Montemayor was afforded his day in court.