Montemayor v. Araneta University [GR L-44251, 31 May 1977] Seon! "ivision, #ernan!o $%&' 4 on(r, 1 on )eave. #ats' Felix #ats' Felix Montemayor was a full-time professor of Araneta University Foundation (AUF), servin serving g as head head of its Humani Humanitie ties s and Psyholo Psyhology gy !epart !epartmen ment" t" #n $% April April $&%', $&%', a ompla omplaint int for immorali immorality ty lodged lodged agains againstt him y the hapla haplain in of the AUF for alleged alleged immorality" *ts then President, !r" +uan aledo, +r", reated a ommittee to investigate suh harge" he ausation entered on onversations on sex and immoral advanes ommitted against the person of .eonardo de .ara" he /rst hearing, whih too0 plae on 1' April $&%', was attended y Montemayor as well as the omplainant with his two witnesses" Montemayor sought the postponement of the investigation to 2 May $&%', whih was granted" #n 13 May $&%', he /led a motion to dismiss or to hold the hearing in aeyane, and on $% +une $&%', he /led an a4davit to sustain his defense" #n 3 +uly $&%', the report and reommendation of the investigating ommittee ame, and was adverse to Montemayor" Montemayor" he reommendation was for his demotion in ran0 y one degree" #n 5 August $&%', aledo adopted suh reommendation and thereafter referred the same to the 6oard of rustees of the AUF for appropriate ation" #n 3 7ovemer $&%', new harges were /led y Professor .uis 8" Alma9an, one +aime asta:eda, and +esus Martin Martine9 e9 agains againstt Montem Montemayo ayorr for ondu ondutt uneo uneomin ming g of a fault faulty y memer memer"" Another Another ommittee was appointed" Montemayor moved to postpone the hearing set for $3 and $& 7ovemer $&%', ut was denied" he hearing proeeded in his asene" #n 5 !eemer $&%', the ommittee sumitted its report /nding the harges against Montemayor to have een een su4i su4ien entl tly y esta estal lis ishe hed d and and reom eomme mend ndin ing g to the the Presi Preside dent nt and and the the 6o 6oar ard d of rustees rustees of the AUF his separation from the University, in aordane with etions $$; and 25$ of the Manual of Poliies of the University" #n $< !eemer $&%', his dismissal was ordered e=etive $5 7ovemer $&%', the date of his preventive suspension" #n $1 !eemer $&%', the University /led with the 7ational .aor 8elations ommission (7.8) a report of his suspension and appliation for learane to terminate his employment" Meanwhile, on 1$ 7ovemer $&%', Montemayor in turn lodged a omplaint with the 7.8 against against AUF for reinstat reinstateme ement nt and payment payment of a0 a0 wages wages and salaries, salaries, with all the privileges, ene/ts and inrements attendant thereto" here was a motion to dismiss on the part of the latter" 6oth the laor ariter and the 7.8 found in favor of Montemayor" He was ordered reinstated to his former position with a0 wages and without loss of seniori seniority ty and other other privil privileges eges"" Montem Montemayo ayor>s r>s ompla omplaint int for unfair unfair laor laor prati pratie e was was,, however, dismissed" AUF appealed to the eretary of .aor who, on $' +uly $&%;, set aside aside the om ommis missio sion>s n>s order order for his reins reinstat tateme ement, nt, /nding /nding Montem Montemayo ayor>s r>s dismis dismissal sal ?usti/ed" he AUF was, however, re@uired to pay Montemayor the amount of P$','3<"<< repre represent senting ing the latter latter>s >s arued arued a0 a0 wages wages whih whih the former former volunta voluntaril rily y o=e o=ere red d to extend him" !issatis/ed with the eretary>s deision, Montemayor /led a petition for ertiorari" *ss(e' *ss(e' hether Montemayor was asolutely denied of due proess in the proeedings relating to his dismissal from AUF"
+e)!' *n proedural due proess, there must e a hearing efore ondemnation, with the investigation to proeed in an orderly manner, and ?udgment to e rendered only after suh in@uiry" Aademi due proess, a term oined, is a system of proedure designed to yield the est possile ?udgment when an adverse deision against a professor may e the onse@uene with stress on the lear, orderly, and fair way of reahing a onlusion" Bvery university or ollege teaher should e entitled efore dismissal or demotion, to have the harges against him stated in writing, in spei/ terms and to have a fair trial on these harges efore a speial or permanent ?udiial ommittee of the faulty or y the faulty at large" At suh trial the teaher aused should have full opportunity to present evidene" Herein, the proedure followed in the /rst investigation of Montemayor (+une $&%') satis/ed the proedure due proess re@uisite" he seond investigation (7ovemer $&%'), however, did not" he motion for postponement therein was denied, the hearing proeeded as sheduled in the asene of Montemayor, and the ommittee lost no time in sumitting its report /nding the harges against Montemayor to have een su4iently estalished and reommending his removal" he de/ieny, however, was remedied, as Montemayor was ale to present his ase efore the .aor ommission" !enial of due proess happened only in the proeeding he had efore the investigating ommittees and not in the proeedings efore the 7.8 wherein he was given the fullest opportunity to present his ase, the latter eing the su?et matter of the petition for ertiorari" Montemayor was a=orded his day in ourt"
