Montemayor vs Araneta University Foundation GR 44251 31 May 1977

Facts:

Felix Montemayor was a faculty of Araneta University Foundation serving as Head of

Humanities and Psychology Department. The Chaplain filed a complaint of immorality
against him. A committee was created to investigate the allegation. With the assistance
of counsel, he filed a motion to dismiss or to hold the hearing in abeyance. The
committee found him responsible of the act complained of and recommended for his
demotion by one degree. The President adopted such recommendation and thereafter
referred the same to the Board of Trustees of private respondent for appropriate action.
Subsequently new charges was filed by different faculty members against him and a
new committee was formed to investigate the allegations. Montemayor asked for
postponement of the hearing and was denied. The hearing proceeded without him and
found him guilty of the same charges and recommended for the discontinuance of his
service. He then filed a complaint with NLRC. NLRC decided in favour of the Foundation.
Hence the present petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the proceeding relating to Montemayor’s dismissal was done in

violation of due process?

Decision:

Petition dismissed. In Montemayor’s absence the matter was heard and was sufficiently
found by the committee to be guilty of his conduct unbecoming and recommended his
removal. Such deficiency was remedied when Montemayor was able to present his case
with the Labour Commission. Records will show that after all efforts on conciliation had
failed parties agreed to submit their dispute for compulsory arbitration. Several hearings
were conducted. he legal aspect as to the procedural due process having been satisfied
was then summarized by the Solicitor General thus: “All the foregoing clearly shows
that petitioner was afforded his day in court. Finally, and more significant, is the fact
that petitioner claims denial of due process in the proceeding had before the
investigating committees and not in the proceedings before the NLRC wherein, as
shown heretofore, he was given the fullest opportunity to present his case.