DUE PROCESS

1. Ermita-Malate Hotel & Motel Operators Assoc., Inc vs Maor o! Manila

Police Power Due Process Clause
"AC#S$ On 13 June 1963, the Manila Municipal Board enacted Ord 4760 and the same was
approved b then actin! maor "stor!a# Ord 4760 sou!ht to re!ulate hotels and motels# $t
classi%ied them into 1
st
class &ta'ed at 6()r* and +
nd
class &ta'ed at 4#,()r*# $t also compelled
hotels)motels to !et the demo!raphics o% anone who chec(s in to their rooms# $t compelled
hotels)motels to have wide open spaces so as not to conceal the identit o% their patrons# -rmita.
Malate impu!ned the validit o% the law averrin! that such is oppressive, arbitrar and a!ainst
due process# /he lower court as well as the appellate court ruled in %avor o% -rmita.Malate#
0etitioners assailed the constitutionalit o% Manila Ordinance 1o# 4760 re!ulatin! the operation
o% hotels, motels and lod!in! houses on the !round that it is unreasonable and hence violative to
the due process clause, wherein it re2uires establishments to provide !uest re!istration %orms on
the lobb open %or public view at all times#
3espondent4itMaor contends that the challen!ed ordinance was a valid and proper e'ercise o%
police power measure %or the proper purpose o% curbin! immoralit# "n e'planator note %or the
challen!ed ordinance made mention o% the alarmin! increase in the rate o% prostitution, adulter
and %ornication inManilatraceable in !reat part to the e'istence o% motels and the li(e#
ISSUE$ 5hether or not Ord 4760 is a!ainst the due process clause#
HE%D$ /he 64 ruled in %avor o% "stor!a# /here is a presumption that the laws enacted b
4on!ress &in this case Mun Board* is valid# 5)o a showin! or a stron! %oundation o% invalidit,
the presumption stas# "s in this case, there was onl a stipulation o% %acts and such cannot
prevail over the presumption# 7urther, the ordinance is a valid e'ercise o% 0olice 0ower# /here is
no 2uestion but that the challen!ed ordinance was precisel enacted to minimi8e certain practices
hurt%ul to public morals# /his is to minimi8e prostitution# /he increase in ta'es not onl
discoura!es hotels)motels in doin! an business other than le!al but also increases the revenue o%
the l!u concerned# "nd ta'ation is a valid e'ercise o% police power as well# /he due process
contention is li(ewise untenable, due process has no e'act de%inition but has reason as a
standard# $n this case, the precise reason wh the ordinance was enacted was to curb down
prostitution in the cit which is reason enou!h and cannot be de%eated b mere sin!lin! out o%
the provisions o% the said ordinance alle!ed to be va!ue#
&. 'I%%E(AS 'S. HIU CHIO)(
"acts$ /he controverted Ordinance no# 6,37 was passed b the Municipal Board o% Manila on
7ebruar ++, 1969 and si!ned b Maor :ille!as# $t is an ordinance ma(in! it unlaw%ul %or an
person not a citi8en o% the 0hilippines to be emploed in an place o% emploment or to be
en!a!ed in an (ind o% trade business or occupation within the cit o% Manila without securin!
an emploment permit %rom the Maor o% Manila and %or other purposes#
;iu 4hion! /sai 0ao ;o, who was emploed in Manila %iled a petition prain! %or the writ o%
preliminar in<unction and restrainin! order to stop the en%orcement o% said ordinance#
Iss*e$ 5hether or 1ot Ordinance no#6,37 violates the due process and e2ual protection clauses
o% the 4onstitution#
Hel+$ $t is a revenue measure# /he cit ordinance which imposes a %ee o% ,0#00 pesos to enable
aliens !enerall to be emploed in the cit o% Manila is not onl %or the purpose o% re!ulation#
5hile it is true that the %irst part which re2uires the alien to secure an emploment permit %rom
the Maor involves the e'ercise o% discretion and <ud!ment in processin! and approval or
disapproval o% application is re!ulator in character, the second part which re2uires the pament
o% a sum o% ,0#00 pesos is not a re!ulator but a revenue measure#
Ordinance no# 6,37 is void and unconstitutional# /his is tantamount to denial o% the basic human
ri!ht o% the people in the 0hilippines to en!a!ed in a means o% livelihood# 5hile it is true that the
0hilippines as a state is not obli!ed to admit aliens within it=s territor, once an alien is admitted
he cannot be deprived o% li%e without due process o% law# /his !uarantee includes the means o%
livelihood# "lso it does not la down an standard to !uide the 4it Maor in the issuance or
denial o% an alien emploment permit %ee#
3. NAMIL VS. COMELEC
"acts$ On Ma +0, +001, the Municipal Board o% 4anvassers o% 0alimban!, 6ultan >udarat
proclaimed the petitioners as winnin! candidates %or their 6an!!unian! Baan# /he %ollowin!
da, herein private respondents were proclaimed winners as well# 0rivate respondents claimed
that the should be reco!ni8ed as the winners, and not the petitioners# ?pon receipt o% such letter,
the 4ommissioner.in.char!e %or 3e!ion @$$ as(ed the Aaw Bepartment, the 3e!ional -lection
3e!istrar and the 0rovincial -lections 6upervisor to submit their reports on the matter# "ll o%
them %ound the second proclamation valid# ;ence, the 4OM-A-4 issued a 3esolution orderin!
the immediate installation o% the private respondents as the newl elected members o% the
6an!!unian! Baan, even thou!h petitioners herein have alread ta(en their oath and have
assumed o%%ice# 0etitioners contend that such 3esolution is null and void because the were not
accorded due notice and hearin!, hence constitutin! a violation o% the due process principle#
Iss*e$ 5hether or 1ot due the 4OM-A-4 has the power to suspend a proclamation or the
e%%ects thereo% without notice and hearin!#
Hel+$ 1o# /he 4OM-A-4 is without power to partiall or totall annul a proclamation or
suspend the e%%ects o% a proclamation without notice and hearin!# /he proclamation on Ma +0,
+001 en<os the presumption o% re!ularit and validit since no contest or protest was even %iled
assailin! the same# /he petitioners cannot be removed %rom o%%ice without due process o% law#
Bue process in 2uasi.<udicial proceedin!s be%ore the 4OM-A-4 re2uires due notice and
hearin!# 7urthermore, the proclamation o% a winnin! candidate cannot be annulled i% he has not
been noti%ied o% an motion to set aside his proclamation# ;ence, as ruled in 7ariCas vs#
4OM-A-4, 3ees vs# 4OM-A-4 and Dallardo vs# 4OM-A-4, the 4OM-A-4 is without
power to partiall or totall annul a proclamation or suspend the e%%ects o% a proclamation
without notice and hearin!#
,. Ic-on. vs Hernan+e/
"actsE 4hinese businessman, Aao $chon!, entered the countr to ta(e advanta!e o% business
opportunities herein abound# ;is tpe o% business particularl is a retail business# ;e and his
%ellow 4hinese businessmen en<oed a FmonopolG in the local mar(et in 0asa# But in June
19,4, 4on!ress passed the 3epublic "ct 1o# 1190 or the 3etail /rade 1ationali8ation "ct# /his
act is to reserve to 7ilipinos the ri!ht to en!a!e in the retail business#
$chon! then petitioned %or the nulli%ication o% the said "ct on the !round that it contravened
several treaties concluded b the 0hilippines# ;e said it violates the e2ual protection clause
&pacta sund servanda* and, as a 4hinese businessman en!a!ed in the business here in the countr
who helps in the income !eneration o% the countr, he should be !iven e2ual opportunit#
ISSUEE 5hether or 1ot 3epublic "ct 1o# 1190 violates e2ual protection clause#
HE%DE 1o# /he mere %act o% aliena!e is the root and cause o% the distinction between the alien
and the national as a trader#
/he alien resident owes alle!iance to the countr o% his birth or his adopted countrH his sta here
is %or personal convenienceH he is attracted b the lure o% !ain and pro%it# ;e is naturall lac(in!
in that spirit o% loalt and enthusiasm %or this countr where he temporaril stas and ma(es his
livin!, or o% that spirit o% re!ard, smpath and consideration %or his 7ilipino customers as would
prevent him %rom ta(in! advanta!e o% their wea(ness and e'ploitin! them#
"nother ob<ection to the alien retailer in this countr is that he never reall ma(es a !enuine
contribution to national income and wealth# /he alien=s interest in this countr bein! merel
transient and temporar, it would indeed be ill.advised to continue entrustin! the ver important
%unction o% retail distribution to his hands#
/he practices resorted to b aliens in the control o% distribution show the e'istence o% real and
actual, positive and %undamental di%%erences between an alien and a national which %ull <usti%
the le!islative classi%ication adopted in the retail trade measure#
0. P-ilippine P-ospate "ertili/er Co. v #orres
"acts$ 0hilphos Movement %or 0ro!ress, $nc# &0M0$ %or brevit*, %iled with the Bepartment o%
Aabor and -mploment a petition %or certi%ication election amon! the supervisor emploees o%
petitioner, alle!in! that as a supervisor union dul re!istered with the Bepartment o% Aabor and
-mploment it was see(in! to represent the supervisor emploees o% 0hilippine 0hosphate
7ertili8er 4orporation# Mediator."rbiter 3odol%o 6# Milado issued an order directin! the holdin!
o% a certi%ication election amon! the supervisor emploees o% petitioner, e'cludin! there%rom
the superintendents and the pro%essional and technical emploees# ;owever, the 0M0$ %iled an
amended petition with the Mediator."rbiter wherein it sou!ht to represent not onl the
supervisor emploees o% petitioner but also its pro%essional)technical and con%idential
emploees# /he parties therein a!reed to submit their respective position papers and to consider
the amended petition submitted %or decision on the basis thereo% and related documents#
Mediator."rbiter Milado issued an order !rantin! the petition and directin! the holdin! o% a
certi%ication election amon! the Isupervisor, pro%essional &en!ineers, analsts, mechanics,
accountants, nurses, midwives, etc#*, technical, and con%idential emploees# 0;$A0;O6
appealed the order to the 6ecretar o% Aabor and -mploment who rendered a decision throu!h
?ndersecretar Bienvenido Aa!uesma dismissin! the appeal# 0;$A0;O6 moved %or
reconsideration but the same was deniedH hence, the instant petition alle!in! denial o% due
process on the part o% the BOA- to which the mediator.arbiter was under#
Iss*e$ 5hether or 1ot there was denial o% due process#
Hel+$ /here was no denial o% due process# /he essence o% due process is simpl an opportunit
to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedin!s, an opportunit to e'plain one=s side or
an opportunit to see( a reconsideration o% the action or rulin! complained o% petitioner
0;$A0;O6 a!reed to %ile its position paper with the Mediator."rbiter and to consider the case
submitted %or decision on the basis o% the position papers %iled b the parties, there was su%%icient
compliance with the re2uirement o% due process, as petitioner was a%%orded reasonable
opportunit to present its side# Moreover, petitioner could have, i% it so desired, insisted on a
hearin! to con%ront and e'amine the witnesses o% the other part# But it did notH instead it opted
to submit its position paper with the Mediator."rbiter# Besides, petitioner had all the opportunit
to ventilate its ar!uments in its appeal to the 6ecretar o% Aabor#
1. R*2i v Provincial 3oar+ o! Min+oro
"acts$ /he provincial board o% Mindoro adopted resolution 1o# +, wherein non.4hristian
inhabitants &uncivili8ed tribes* will be directed to ta(e up their habitation on sites on unoccupied
public lands# $t is resolved that under section +077 o% the "dministrative 4ode, 900 hectares o%
public land in the sitio o% /i!bao on 1au<an Aa(e be selected as a site %or the permanent
settlement o% Man!anes in Mindoro# 7urther, Man!ans ma onl solicit homesteads on this
reservation providin! that said homestead applications are previousl recommended b the
provincial !overnor#
$n that case, pursuant to 6ection +14, o% the 3evised "dministrative 4ode, all the Man!ans in
the townships o% 1au<an and 0ola and the Man!ans east o% the Baco 3iver includin! those in
the districts o% Bulan!an and 3ubi=s place in 4alapan, were ordered to ta(e up their habitation on
the site o% /i!bao, 1au<an Aa(e# "lso, that an Man!an who shall re%use to compl with this
order shall upon conviction be imprisoned not e'ceed in si't das, in accordance with section
+7,9 o% the revised "dministrative 4ode#
6aid resolution o% the provincial board o% Mindoro were claimed as necessar measures %or the
protection o% the Man!anes o% Mindoro as well as the protection o% public %orests in which the
roam, and to introduce civili8ed customs amon! them# $t appeared that 3ubi and those livin! in
his rancheria have not %i'ed their dwellin! within the reservation o% /i!bao and are liable to be
punished#
$t is alle!ed that the Man!uianes are bein! ille!all deprived o% their libert b the provincial
o%%icials o% that province# 3ubi and his companions are said to be held on
the reservation established at /i!bao, Mindoro, a!ainst their will, and one Babalos is said to be
held under the custod o% the provincial sheri%% in the prison at 4alapan %or havin! run awa
%orm the reservation#
Iss*e$ 5hether or 1ot 6ection +14, o% the "dministrative 4ode deprives a person o% his libert
p% abode# /hus, 5O1 6ection +14, o% the "dministrative 4ode o% 1917 is constitutional#
Hel+$ /he 4ourt held that section +14, o% the "dministrative 4ode does not deprive a person o%
his libert o% abode and does not den to him the e2ual protection o% the laws, and that
con%inement in reservations in accordance with said section does not constitute slaver and
involuntar servitude# /he 4ourt is %urther o% the opinion that section +14, o% the "dministrative
4ode is a le!itimate e'ertion o% the police power# 6ection +14, o% the "dministrative 4ode o%
1917 is constitutional#
"ssi!ned as reasons %or the actionE &1* attempts %or the advancement o% the non.4hristian people
o% the provinceH and &+* the onl success%ull method %or educatin! the Man!uianes was to
obli!e them to live in a permanent settlement# /he 6olicitor.Deneral adds the %ollowin!H &3* /he
protection o% the Man!uianesH &4* the protection o% the public %orests in which the roamH &,* the
necessit o% introducin! civili8ed customs amon! the Man!uianes#
One cannot hold that the libert o% the citi8en is undul inter%ered without when the de!ree o%
civili8ation o% the Man!uianes is considered# /he are restrained %or their own !ood and the
!eneral !ood o% the 0hilippines#
FAibert re!ulated b lawIE $mplied in the term is restraint b law %or the !ood o% the individual
and %or the !reater !ood o% the peace and order o% societ and the !eneral well.bein!# 1o man
can do e'actl as he pleases#
1one o% the ri!hts o% the citi8en can be ta(en awa e'cept b due process o% law#
/here%ore, petitioners are not unlaw%ull imprisoned or restrained o% their libert# ;abeas
corpus can, there%ore, not issue#
4. 5avier v Comelec
"acts$ /he petitioner and the private respondent were candidates in "nti2ue %or the Batasan!
0ambansa in the Ma 1994 elections# /he %ormer appeared to en<o more popular support but the
latter had the advanta!e o% bein! the nominee o% the >BA with all its per2uisites o% power# On
Ma 13, 1994, the eve o% the elections, the bitter contest between the two came to a head when
several %ollowers o% the petitioner were ambushed and (illed, alle!edl b the latter=s men# 6even
suspects, includin! respondent 0aci%icador, are now %acin! trial %or these murders# Owin! to
what he claimed were attempts to railroadthe private respondent=s proclamation, the petitioner
went to the4ommission on -lections to 2uestion the canvass o% the election returns# ;is
complaints were dismissed and the private respondent was proclaimed winner b the 6econd
Bivision o% the said bod# /he petitioner thereupon came to this 4ourt, ar!uin! that the
proclamation was void because made onl b a division and not b the 4ommissionon -lections
en banc as re2uired b the 4onstitution# Meanwhile, on the stren!th o% his proclamation, the
private respondent too( his oath as a member o% the Batasan! 0ambansa#
Iss*e$ 5hether or 1ot the 6econd Bivision o% the 4ommission on -lections authori8ed to
promul!ate its decision o% Jul +3, 1994, proclaimin! the private respondent the winner in the
election#
Hel+$ /his 4ourt has repeatedl and consistentl demanded Ithe cold neutralit o% an impartial
<ud!eI as the indispensable imperative o% due process# /o bolster that re2uirement, we have held
that the <ud!e must not onl be impartial but must also appear to be impartial as an added
assurance to the parties that his decision will be <ust# /he liti!ants are entitled to no less than that#
/he should be sure that when their ri!hts are violated the can !o to a <ud!e who shall !ive
them <ustice# /he must trust the <ud!e, otherwise the will not !o to him at all# /he must
believe in his sense o% %airness, otherwise the will not see( his <ud!ment# 5ithout such
con%idence, there would be no point in invo(in! his action %or the <ustice the e'pect#
Bue process is intended to insure that con%idence b re2uirin! compliance with what Justice
7ran(%urter calls the rudiments o% %air pla# 7air pla cans %or e2ual <ustice# /here cannot be
e2ual <ustice where a suitor approaches a court alread committed to the other part and with a
<ud!ment alread made and waitin! onl to be %ormali8ed a%ter the liti!ants shall have under!one
the charade o% a %ormal hearin!# Judicial &and also e'tra.<udicial* proceedin!s are not
orchestrated plas in which the parties are supposed to ma(e the motions and reach the
denouement accordin! to a prepared script# /here is no writer to %oreordain the endin!# /he
<ud!e will reach his conclusions onl a%ter all the evidence is in and all the ar!uments are %iled,
on the basis o% the established %acts and the pertinent law#
6. Ania. 5r. v Comelec
"acts$ ?pon the issuance o% declaration o% !un ban b the 4omelec in connection to the national
J local election, the 6!t.at."rms o% the ;ouse o% 3epresentatives re2uested petitioner to return
the + %irearms issued b the ;ouse to him# $n compliance, petitioner ordered his driver "rellano
to pic( up the %irearms in his house to return them to 4on!ress# On his wa bac( to the Batasan
4omple', "rellano was %la!!ed down in a chec( point and police search the car# ?pon %indin!
the !uns, he was apprehended and detained and his case was re%erred %or in2uest to the 4it
prosecutor o%%ice# 0etitioner was not made a part to the char!e but was invited to shed li!ht on
the incident# 0etitioner e'plained the purpose how "rellano came to have the %irearms boarded
on the car and wrote the prosecutor to e'onerate "rellano %rom the char!es# /he prosecutor
recommended dismissin! the case# /he 4omelec however issued a resolution %ilin! in%ormation
in violation o% the !un ban a!ainst petitioner# 0etitioner moves %or reconsideration to the
4omelec which was denied hence this petition contendin! that the search on his car was ille!al
and that he was not impleaded as respondent in the preliminar investi!ation and his
constitutional ri!hts %or due process was violated#
Iss*e$ 5hether or not petitioner was denied o% due process o% law#
Hel+$ /he court held that as a rule, a valid search must be authori8ed b a search warrant dul
issued b an appropriate authorit# ;owever, this is not absolute# "side %rom a search incident to
a law%ul arrest, a 7arrantless searc- -a+ 2een *p-el+ in cases o! 819 movin! vehicles &+* the
sei8ure o% evidence in plain view and &3* search conducted at police or militar chec(points
which are not ille!al %or as lon! as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants sub<ected to a
bod search, and the inspection o% the vehicle is merel limited to a visual search, and &4* 6top.
and.search without warrant conducted b police o%%icers on the basis o% prior con%idential
in%ormation which were reasonabl corroborated b other attendant matters is also reco!ni8ed b
the court to be le!al# "n e'tensive search without warrant could onl be resorted to i% the o%%icers
conductin! the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either
the motorist was a law o%%ender or that the would %ind the instrumentalit or evidence pertainin!
to the commission o% a crime in the vehicle to be searched# Because there was no su%%icient
evidence that would impel the policemen to suspect "rellano to <usti% the search the have
conducted, such action constitutes an unreasonable intrusion o% the petitionerKs privac and
securit o% his propert in violation o% 6ection +, "rticle $$$ o% the 4onstitution# 4onse2uentl,
the %irearms obtained in violation o% petitioner=s ri!ht a!ainst warrantless search cannot be
admitted %or an purpose in an proceedin!# /he manner b which 4OM-A-4 proceeded
a!ainst petitioner runs counter to the due process clause o% the 4onstitution# /he %acts show that
petitioner was not amon! those char!ed b the 010 with violation o% the Omnibus -lection
4ode# 1or was he sub<ected b the 4it 0rosecutor to a preliminar investi!ation %or such
o%%ense# /hus the court declared the warrantless search and sei8ure o% the %irearms as ille!al
hence inadmissible to court as evidence in an proceedin! a!ainst the petitioner#
:. P-ilcomsat v Alc*a/
"acts$ ;erein petitioner is en!a!ed in providin! %or services involvin! telecommunications#
4har!in! rates %or certain speci%ied lines that were reduced b order o% herein respondent Jose
"lcua8 4ommissioner o% the 1ational /elecommunications 4ommission# /he rates were ordered
to be reduced b %i%teen percent &1,L* due to -'ecutive Order 1o# ,46 which !ranted the 1/4
the power to %i' rates# 6aid order was issued without prior notice and hearin!#
Iss*e$ 5hether or 1ot -#O# ,46 is unconstitutional#
Hel+$ Mes# 3espondents admitted that the application o% a polic li(e the %i'in! o% rates as
e'ercised b administrative bodies is 2uasi.<udicial rather than 2uasi.le!islative# But
respondentKs contention that notice and hearin! are not re2uired since the assailed order is merel
incidental to the entire proceedin!s and temporar in nature is erroneous# 6ection 16&c* o% the
0ublic 6ervice "ct, providin! %or the proceedin!s o% the 4ommission, upon notice and hearin!,
dictates that a 4ommission has power to %i' rates, upon proper notice and hearin!, and, i% not
sub<ect to the e'ceptions, limitations or savin! provisions#
$t is thus clear that with re!ard to rate.%i'in!, respondent has no authorit to ma(e such order
without %irst !ivin! petitioner a hearin!, whether the order be temporar or permanent, and it is
immaterial whether the same is made upon a complaint, a summar investi!ation, or upon the
commission=s own motion as in the present case#
5;-3-7O3-, the writ praed %or is D3"1/-B and the order o% respondents is hereb 6-/
"6$B-#
1;. An. #i2a v CIR
"acts$ /here was a!reement between "n! /iba and the 1ational Aabor ?nion, $nc &1A?*# /he
1A? alle!ed that the supposed lac( o% leather material claimed b /oribio /eodoro was but a
scheme adopted to sstematicall dischar!e all the members o% the 1A?, %rom wor(# "nd this
averment is desired to be proved b the petitioner with the records o% the Bureau o% 4ustoms and
Boo(s o% "ccounts o% native dealers in leather# /hat 1ational 5or(er=s Brotherhood ?nion o%
"n! /iba is a compan or emploer union dominated b /oribio /eodoro, which was alle!ed b
the 1A? as an ille!al one# /he 4$3, decided the case and elevated it to the 6upreme 4ourt, but a
motion %or new trial was raised b the 1A?# But the "n! /iba %iled a motion %or opposin! the
said motion#
Iss*e$ 5hether or 1ot, the motion %or new trial is meritorious to be !ranted#
Hel+$ /o be!in with the issue be%ore us is to reali8e the %unctions o% the 4$3# /he 4$3 is a
special court whose %unctions are speci%icall stated in the law o% its creation which is the
4ommonwealth "ct 1o# 103*# $t is more an administrative board than a part o% the inte!rated
<udicial sstem o% the nation# $t is not intended to be a mere receptive or!an o% the !overnment#
?nli(e a court o% <ustice which is essentiall passive, actin! onl when its <urisdiction is invo(ed
and decidin! onl cases that are presented to it b the parties liti!ant, the %unction o% the 4$3, as
will appear %rom perusal o% its or!anic law is more active, a%%irmative and dnamic# $t not onl
e'ercises <udicial or 2uasi.<udicial %unctions in the determination o% disputes between emploers
and emploees but its %unctions are %ar more comprehensive and e'tensive# $t has <urisdiction
over the entire 0hilippines, to consider, investi!ate, decide, and settle an 2uestion, matter
controvers or disputes arisin! between, and) or a%%ectin! emploers and emploees or laborers,
and landlords and tenants or %arm.laborers, and re!ulates the relations between them, sub<ect to,
and in accordance with, the provisions o% 4" 103#
"s laid down in the case o% Doseco v# 4$3, the 64 had the occasion to point out that the 4$3 is
not narrowl constrained b technical rules o% procedure, and e2uit and substantial merits o% the
case, without re!ard to technicalities or le!al %orms and shall not be bound b an technical rules
o% le!al evidence but ma in%orm its mind in such manner as it ma deem <ust and e2uitable#
/he %act, however, that the 4$3 ma be said to be %ree %rom ri!idit o% certain procedural
re2uirements does not mean that it can in <usticiable cases comin! be%ore it, entirel i!nore or
disre!ard the %undamental and essential re2uirements o% due process in trials and investi!ations
o% an administrative character# /here cardinal primar ri!hts which must be respected even in
proceedin!s o% this characterE
&1* the ri!ht to a hearin!, which includes the ri!ht to present one=s cause and submit evidence in
support thereo%H
&+* /he tribunal must consider the evidence presentedH
&3* /he decision must have somethin! to support itsel%H
&4* /he evidence must be substantialH
&,* /he decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearin!H or at least contained in
the record and disclosed to the parties a%%ectedH
&6* /he tribunal or bod or an o% its <ud!es must act on its own independent consideration o% the
law and %acts o% the controvers, and not simpl accept the views o% a subordinateH
&7* /he Board or bod should, in all controversial 2uestions, render its decision in such manner
that the parties to the proceedin! can (now the various $ssue involved, and the reason %or the
decision rendered#
/he %ailure to !rasp the %undamental issue involved is not entirel attributable to the parties
adversel a%%ected b the result# "ccordin!l, the motion %or a new trial should be, and the same
is hereb !ranted, and the entire record o% this case shall be remanded to the 4$3, with
instruction that it reopen the case receive all such evidence as ma be relevant, and otherwise
proceed in accordance with the re2uirements set %orth# 6o ordered#
11. Ateneo +e Manila Universit v Cap*lon.
"acts$ Aeonardo ;# :illa, a %irst ear law student o% 0etitioner ?niversit, died o% serious
phsical in<uries at 4hinese Deneral ;ospital a%ter the initiation rites o% "2uila Ae!is#
Bienvenido Mar2ue8 was also hospitali8ed at the 4apitol Medical 4enter %or acute renal %ailure
occasioned b the serious phsical in<uries in%licted upon him on the same occasion# 0etitioner
Bean 4nthia del 4astillo created a Joint "dministration.7acult.6tudent $nvesti!atin!
4ommittee which was tas(ed to investi!ate and submit a report within 7+ hours on the
circumstances surroundin! the death o% Aennie :illa# 6aid notice also re2uired respondent
students to submit their written statements within twent.%our &+4* hours %rom receipt# "lthou!h
respondent students received a cop o% the written notice, the %ailed to %ile a repl# $n the
meantime, the were placed on preventive suspension# /he Joint "dministration.7acult.6tudent
$nvesti!atin! 4ommittee, a%ter receivin! the written statements and hearin! the testimonies o%
several witness, %ound a prima %acie case a!ainst respondent students %or violation o% 3ule 3 o%
the Aaw 6chool 4atalo!ue entitled IBiscipline#I 3espondent students were then re2uired to %ile
their written answers to the %ormal char!e# 0etitioner Bean created a Bisciplinar Board to hear
the char!es a!ainst respondent students# /he Board %ound respondent students !uilt o% violatin!
3ule 1o# 3 o% the "teneo Aaw 6chool 3ules on Biscipline which prohibits participation in ha8in!
activities# ;owever, in view o% the lac( o% unanimit amon! the members o% the Board on the
penalt o% dismissal, the Board le%t the imposition o% the penalt to the ?niversit
"dministration# "ccordin!l, 7r# Bernas imposed the penalt o% dismissal on all respondent
students# 3espondent students %iled with 3/4 Ma(ati a /3O since the are currentl enrolled#
/his was !ranted# " /3O was also issued en<oinin! petitioners %rom dismissin! the respondents#
" da a%ter the e'piration o% the temporar restrainin! order, Bean del 4astillo created a 6pecial
Board to investi!ate the char!es o% ha8in! a!ainst respondent students "bas and Mendo8a# /his
was re2uested to be stric(en out b the respondents and ar!ued that the creation o% the 6pecial
Board was totall unrelated to the ori!inal petition which alle!ed lac( o% due process# /his was
!ranted and reinstatement o% the students was ordered#
Iss*e$ 5as there denial o% due process a!ainst the respondent students#
Hel+$ /here was no denial o% due process, more particularl procedural due process# Bean o% the
"teneo Aaw 6chool, noti%ied and re2uired respondent students to submit their written statement
on the incident# $nstead o% %ilin! a repl, respondent students re2uested throu!h their counsel,
copies o% the char!es# /he nature and cause o% the accusation were ade2uatel spelled out in
petitioners= notices# 0resent is the twin elements o% notice and hearin!#
3espondent students ar!ue that petitioners are not in a position to %ile the instant petition under
3ule 6, considerin! that the %ailed to %ile a motion %or reconsideration %irst be%ore the trial
court, thereb b passin! the latter and the 4ourt o% "ppeals# $t is accepted le!al doctrine that an
e'ception to the doctrine o% e'haustion o% remedies is when the case involves a 2uestion o% law,
as in this case, where the issue is whether or not respondent students have been a%%orded
procedural due process prior to their dismissal %rom 0etitioner ?niversit#
Minimum standards to be satis%ied in the imposition o% disciplinar sanctions in academic
institutions, such as petitioner universit herein, thusE
&1* the students must be in%ormed in writin! o% the nature and cause o% an accusation a!ainst
themH
&+* that the shall have the ri!ht to answer the char!es a!ainst them with the assistance o%
counsel, i% desiredE
&3* the shall be in%ormed o% the evidence a!ainst them
&4* the shall have the ri!ht to adduce evidence in their own behal%H and
&,* the evidence must be dul considered b the investi!atin! committee or o%%icial desi!nated
b the school authorities to hear and decide the case#