Facts:

In the case of Cleto Asprec v. Victoriano Itchon, Jose Suguitan, Felipe P. Cruz, The Executive Secretary, Nicanor G. Jorge, Antonio Noblejas, and Jacinto Hernandez, G.R. No. L-21685, the petitioner, Cleto Asprec, faced an administrative complaint for unprofessional conduct, initiated by respondent Jacinto Hernandez on December 6, 1956. Hernandez alleged that Asprec was contracted to survey a lot he owned in Port Junction, Ragay, Camarines Sur, and was to deliver an approved survey plan within three months and procure a certificate of title within six months after the plan's approval. Nevertheless, Asprec failed to provide the plan even after four years had passed. In defense, Asprec claimed he complied by submitting plan Psu-148774 (Ap-2419), but Hernandez countered that this was not a plan of an original survey but merely a copy of a previous survey for a different client, Damian Alhambra. The Board of Examiners for Surveyors ruled in favor of Hernandez, finding that no act

...

Facts:

Background and Nature of the Case

• Cleto Asprec, a private land surveyor, was the petitioner/appellant.
• An administrative complaint for unprofessional conduct was filed by Jacinto Hernandez (a respondent/complainant) before the Board of Examiners for Surveyors.
• Hernandez alleged that Asprec undertook to survey his lot in Port Junction, Ragay, Camarines Sur and was contractually obligated to:
• Deliver a plan approved by the Director of Lands within three months after the survey’s completion, and
• Procure the issuance of a certificate of title to the surveyed lot within six months after the plan’s approval.
• Hernandez claimed that although he paid the agreed consideration, Asprec delivered a plan (Ap-2419) that was merely a certified copy (sheet 2) of another plan (Psu-148774) originally executed for a different client, Damian Alhambra, and not an original survey plan as contractually required.

Proceedings Before the Board

• The Board held hearings and exchanged procedural motions:
• On March 31, 1958, during the initial hearing, Petitioner objected that the complaint was not sworn under oath; the Board ordered Hernandez to submit a verified complaint.
• At the May 12, 1958 hearing, upon learning that the verified complaint set forth new facts, Asprec requested a 10-day period to answer; instead of providing an answer, his counsel filed a motion to dismiss on June 5, 1958.
• During the August 18, 1958 hearing, Asprec sought a postponement of the proceedings pending the resolution of his motion to dismiss; the hearing was subsequently reset.
• On March 11, 1959, a hearing was scheduled but eventually postponed to May 11, 1959, due to complaints of illness by Asprec’s counsel.
• On May 11, 1959, Hernandez and his counsel appeared, while Asprec and his counsel were absent without notifying the Board of any valid cause.
• At the May 11 hearing, Hernandez’s counsel stated that all evidence against Asprec had already been submitted, and subsequently filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which followed the admissions contained in the pleadings and the documentary evidence.

Findings of the Board and Subsequent Orders

• The Board determined that:
• No actual survey of Hernandez’ lot had been performed by Asprec;
• The money was paid by Hernandez on the belief that a proper survey had been executed; and
• Asprec was guilty of deceit and had violated the Code of Ethics for surveyors by delivering a mere copy rather than an original survey plan.
• As a result, the Board unanimously decided on October 27, 1959 to revoke Asprec’s certificate of registration as a private land surveyor and ordered its surrender.
• On December 1, 1959, the Assistant Executive Secretary, acting under the President’s authority, approved the Board’s decision.
• On February 12, 1960, the Board’s chairman demanded the surrender of Asprec’s certificate within five days.
• Asprec’s motion to reconsider filed on March 16, 1960 was denied by the Office of the President on October 31, 1960.
• On March 22, 1960, respondent Jorge (Director of Lands) ordered that all unacted surveys executed or corrected by Asprec after October 27, 1959 be returned to him.
• Asprec then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, seeking annulment of the revocation order, mandamus to compel a formal hearing before the Board, and prohibition to stop the execution of the surrender order.
• The preliminary injunction was rejected and, following a stipulation of facts, the court rendered judgment on August 14, 1962 dismissing his petition with costs.

Petitioner’s Main Argument

• Asprec contended that he was denied his “day in court” and argued that he ought to be given another opportunity to be heard, particularly asserting that:
• The proceedings before the Board were quasi-criminal in nature; and
• The technical irregularities, including his absence at the final hearing, should compel a rehearing or reversal of the Board’s decision.
• He argued that presence during trial was not the sole element of due process as long as proper notice and an opportunity to be heard were given.

Judicial Considerations and Context

• The Court reviewed the sequence of hearings, emphasizing that:
• Asprec had ample notice of the hearing dates, notably the agreed May 11, 1959 session; and
• His absence at the crucial hearing, without valid excuse, amounted to a forfeiture of his right to be heard further.
• The Court noted that the Board, composed of technical personnel, was granted a degree of leeway in its proceedings, and that technical procedural rules in administrative contexts are not applied with the rigidity expected in judicial trials.
• The Court also referenced analogous cases to underline that failure to appear does not constitute a denial of due process if notice has been properly served.

Issue:

Whether the petitioner was deprived of his right to a fair hearing (due process) because of his absence during the crucial Board hearing.

• Did proper notice and opportunity to be heard exist, even though Asprec and his counsel were absent at the May 11, 1959 hearing?

Whether the proceedings before the Board, which were characterized as quasi-criminal in nature by the petitioner, mandated a strict observance of formal trial procedures.

• Can the technical irregularities in administrative hearings be equated to those in criminal proceedings, thereby entitling Asprec to another opportunity to defend himself?

• Whether the Board's decision to proceed ex parte and render a judgment on the pleadings, based on the evidence (including the submitted plans), was procedurally and substantively valid.

• Whether any alleged procedural errors committed by the Board were of a prejudicial nature or non-prejudicial in light of the petitioner’s failure to appear.

• Whether the revocation of Asprec’s surveyor’s certificate accords with the statutory provisions (specifically Section 10 of Act 3626 as amended by Act 3889) that empower the Board to suspend or revoke a license based on unprofessional conduct.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)