Crespo v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Gregorio T. Crespo was the elected Municipal Mayor of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. On January 25, 1971, an administrative complaint for harassment, abuse of authority, and oppression was filed against him by private respondent Pedro T. Wycoco. Petitioner submitted a written explanation as required by Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5185. Procedural History: On February 15, 1971, the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija conducted a hearing on the administrative case without notifying petitioner or his counsel. During this hearing, private respondent Wycoco was allowed to present evidence, testimonial and documentary, ex parte. Based on this evidence, the Provincial Board issued Resolution No. 51, preventively suspending petitioner from his office. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction, seeking to annul Resolution No. 51 and to enjoin the Provincial Board from enforcing the suspension and proceeding with the administrative case. Petitioner argued that the preventive suspension was arbitrary, high-handed, shocking, and a gross violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5185, which requires a hearing and investigation before suspension, and that the Provincial Board gravely violated due process.
Issue(s)
Whether the order of preventive suspension issued by the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija is arbitrary and violative of due process, specifically whether the petitioner was denied his right to notice and hearing.
Ruling
The Court agreed with the petitioner that he was denied due process by the respondent Provincial Board. However, the petition has become moot and academic as the records do not show that the petitioner was elected to any public office in the last local elections held on January 18, 1988. The preliminary injunction issued by the Court on May 3, 1971, was lifted, and the petition was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of denial of due process: The Court held that the order of preventive suspension was issued without giving the petitioner a chance to be heard. The Provincial Board's contention that the petitioner's counsel was notified was not sufficiently proven. Furthermore, the records did not show that the written explanation submitted by the petitioner was taken into account when the assailed order was issued. The order was based mainly on the evidence presented ex parte by respondent Wycoco. The Court emphasized that notice and hearing are fundamental concepts in any fair and enlightened system of justice, citing Azul vs. Castro and Santiago v. Santos. A fair hearing requires giving the opposing party a chance to present evidence, consistent with the principle of "cold neutrality of an impartial judge."
Main Doctrine
An order of preventive suspension issued without affording the respondent a chance to be heard and to present evidence violates the fundamental principles of due process.