Title
Crespo vs. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija
Case
G.R. No. L-33237
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
Mayor Crespo suspended without notice or hearing; Supreme Court ruled due process violated, but case dismissed as moot after 1988 election loss.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-33237)

Factual Background

Petitioner was the duly elected municipal mayor of Cabiao. On 25 January 1971 private respondent Pedro T. Wycoco filed an administrative complaint alleging harassment, abuse of authority and oppression. Petitioner submitted a written explanation as required by Section 5, Republic Act No. 5185.

Administrative Hearing by the Provincial Board

On 15 February 1971 the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija conducted a hearing without notifying petitioner or his counsel. During that proceeding the Board allowed Wycoco to present testimonial and documentary evidence ex parte. On the basis principally of that evidence the Board adopted Resolution No. 51, preventively suspending petitioner from office.

Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and injunction with a prayer for preliminary injunction seeking annulment of Resolution No. 51, a prohibition against its enforcement, and an injunction against further administrative proceedings. Petitioner alleged that the preventive suspension was arbitrary and violated the procedural requirements of Section 5, Republic Act No. 5185, and that the Board’s action denied him fundamental due process.

Preliminary Injunction

This Court granted a preliminary injunction on 3 May 1971 restraining enforcement of the suspension pending resolution of the petition. The injunction thus preserved the status quo while the Court considered the legal issues raised by petitioner.

The Provincial Board’s Claim and the Court’s Assessment

The Provincial Board asserted that petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Bernardo M. Abesamis, had requested in writing the opportunity to argue petitioner’s explanation at the Board’s usual session but failed to appear. The Court held that this assertion stood unsupported by evidence in the record. The proceedings of 15 February 1971 did not disclose that petitioner’s written explanation had been considered. The assailed suspension rested mainly on evidence presented ex parte by Wycoco.

Legal Reasoning on Due Process

The Court agreed with petitioner that procedural due process was denied. The Court reiterated the well-established principle that employment, profession or official position constitutes a property right entitled to protection under due process, citing Callanta v. Carnation Philippines, Inc., 145 SCRA 268. The Court emphasized that notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental, citing Azul v. Castro, 133 SCRA 271, and relied on the principle that a tribunal should not render judgment based solely on one party’s evidence where the opposing party has been denied an opportunity to present his case.

Mootness and Disposition

Despi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.