Montemayor v. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321 (1977)

Montemayor v. Araneta University Foundation, 77 SCRA 321 (1977) ​

FACTS:

• Felix Montemayor was a full-time professor of Araneta University Foundation (AUF) who was complained for immorality by the Chaplain of the AUF on 17 April 1974, Then President, Dr. Juan Salcedo, Jr., created a committee to investigate the charge. The accusation centered on conversations on sex and immoral advances committed against the person of Leonardo de Lara.
• The first hearing on 24 April 1974 was attended by Montemayor, de Lara and his two (2) witnesses. Montemayor sought the postponement of the investigation to 3 May 1974, which was granted. On 28 May 1974, he filed a motion to dismiss or to hold the hearing in abeyance, and on 17 June 1974, he filed an affidavit to sustain his defense. On 8 July 1974, the report and recommendation of the investigating committee came, recommending his demotion in rank by one degree.
• On 8 November 1974, new charges were filed against Montemayor for conduct unbecoming of a faculty member and another committee was appointed. Montemayor moved to postpone the hearing set for 18 and 19 November 1974, but was denied. The hearing proceeded in his absence.
• On 5 December 1974, the Committee submitted its report finding the charges against Montemayor to have been sufficiently established. On 10 December 1974, his dismissal was ordered effective 15 November 1974, the date of his preventive suspension.On 12 December 1974, the University filed with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) a report of his suspension and application for clearance to terminate his employment.
• Meanwhile, on 21 November 1974, Montemayor in turn lodged a complaint with the NLRC against AUF for reinstatement and payment of back wages and salaries, with all the privileges, benefits and increments attendant thereto. There was a motion to dismiss on the part of the latter but both the labor arbiter and the NLRC found in favor of Montemayor. He was ordered reinstated to his former position with back wages and without loss of seniority and other privileges.
• Montemayor's complaint for unfair labor practice was, however, dismissed. AUF appealed to the Secretary of Labor who, on 14 July 1976, set aside the Commission's order for his reinstatement, finding Montemayor's dismissal justified. The AUF was, however, required to pay Montemayor the amount of P14,480.00 representing the latter's accrued back wages which the former voluntarily offered to extend him. Dissatisfied with the Secretary's decision, Montemayor filed a petition for certiorari.

 
ISSUE: 
 
Whether or not Montemayor was absolutely denied of due process in the proceedings relating to his dismissal from AUF
 
RULING:
 No.
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.