SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-33237 April 15, 1988

GREGORIO T. CRESPO, in His Cp!i"# s $#or o% C&io, N'() E!i*, petitioner,
vs.
PRO+INCIAL ,OAR- O. N/E+A ECI0A n1 PE-RO T. 23COCO, respondents.
Bernardo P. Abesamis for petitioner.
Cecilio F. Wycoco for respondents.

PA-ILIA, J.:
Petitioner was the elected Municipal Mayor of Caiao, Nueva Eci!a, in the local elections of "#$%. On
&' (anuary "#%", an ad)inistrative co)plaint was filed a*ainst hi) y private respondent, Pedro +.
,ycoco for harass)ent, ause of authority and oppression.
1
-s re.uired, petitioner filed a written
e/planation as to why he should not e dealt with ad)inistrdatively, with the Provincial 0oard of Nueve
Eci!a, in accordance with Section ', 1epulic -ct No. '"2'.
2
On "' 3eruary "#%", without notifyin* petitioner or his counsel, pulic respondent Provincial 0oard
conducted a hearin* of the aforecited ad)inistrative case. Durin* the hearin*, private respondent
Pedro +. ,ycoco was allowed to present evidence, testi)onial and docu)entary, ex parte, and on
the asis of the evidence presented, the respondent Provincial 0oard passed 1esolution No. '"
preventively suspendin* petitioner fro) his office as )unicipal )ayor of Caiao, Nueva Eci!a.
3
In this petition for certiorari, prohiition and in!unction with prayer for preli)inary in!unction, petitioner
see4s to annul and set aside 1esolution No. '" of pulic respondent Provincial 0oard, preventively
suspendin* hi) fro) office and to en!oin pulic respondent fro) enforcin* and5or i)ple)entin* the
order of preventive suspension and fro) proceedin* further with the ad)inistrative case.
-ccordin* to petitioner, the order of preventive suspension e)odied in 1esolution No. '" issued y
the Provincial 0oard is aritrary, hi*h6handed, atrocious, shoc4in* and *rossly violative of Section '
of 1epulic -ct No. '"2' which re.uires a hearin* and investi*ation of the truth or falsity of char*es
efore preventive suspension is allowed. In issuin* the order of preventive suspension, the
respondent Provincial 0oard, petitioner adds, has *rossly violated the funda)ental and ele)entary
principles of due process.
4
On 7 May "#%", this Court issued a preli)inary in!unction.
5
,e a*ree with the petitioner that he was
denied due process y respondent Provincial 0oard.
In Callanta vs. Carnation Philippines, Inc.
5
this Court held8
It is a principle in -)erican !urisprudence which, undoutedly, is well6reco*ni9ed in
this !urisdiction that one:s e)ploy)ent, profession, trade or callin* is a ;property
ri*ht,; and the wron*ful interference therewith is an actionale wron*. +he ri*ht is
considered to e property within the protection of a constitutional *uaranty of due
process of law.
7
<ndoutedly, the order of preventive suspension was issued without *ivin* the petitioner a chance to
e heard. +o controvert the clai) of petitioner that he was not fully notified of the scheduled hearin*,
respondent Provincial 0oard, in its Me)orandu), contends that ;-tty. 0ernardo M. -esa)is,
counsel for the petitioner )ayor )ade 4nown y a re.uest in writin*, sent to the Secretary of the
Provincial 0oard his desire to e *iven opportunity to ar*ue the e/planation of the said petitioner
)ayor at the usual ti)e of the respondent 0oard:s )eetin*, ut unfortunately, inspire of the ti)e
allowed for the counsel for the petitioner )ayor to appear as re.uested y hi), he failed to appeal.;
8
+he contention of the Provincial 0oard cannot stand alone in the asence of proof or evidence to
support it. Moreover, in the proceedin*s held on "' 3eruary "#%", nothin* therein can e *athered
that, in issuin* the assailed order, the written e/planation su)itted y petitioner was ta4en into
account. +he assailed order was issued )ainly on the asis of the evidence presented ex parte y
respondent ,ycoco.
In Azul vs. Castro,
9
this Court said8
3ro) the earliest inception of instutional *overn)ent in our country, the concepts of
notice and hearin* have een funda)ental. - fair and enli*htened syste) of !ustice
would e i)possile without the ri*ht to notice and to e oard. +he e)phasis on
sustantive due process and other recent ra)ifications of the due process clause
so)eti)es leads ench and ar to overloo4 or for*et that due process was initially
concerned with fair procedure. Every law student early learns in law school definition
su)itted y counsel Mr. ,ester in rustees of !artmouth Colle"e v. Wood#ard =>
,heat. '"2? that due process is the e.uivalent of law of the land which )eans ;+he
*eneral law@ a law which hears efore it conde)ns, which proceedin* upon in.uiry
and renders !ud*)ent only after trial ... that every citi9en shall hold his life, lierty,
property, and i))unities under the protection of the *eneral rules which *overn
society.
- sportin* opportunity to e heard and the rendition of !ud*)ent only after a lawful
hearin* y a coldly neutral and i)partial !ud*e are essential ele)ents of procedural
due process.
,e had occasion to e)phasi9e in $antia"o v. $antos =$7 SC1- 7#&?, which, unli4e
the case efore us now, was only a su))ary action for e!ect)ent that8
In an adversary proceedin*, fairness and prudence dictate that a
!ud*)ent, ased only on plaintiffs evidence adduced ex parte and
rendered without hearin* defendant:s evidence, should e avoided as
)uch as possile. In order that ias )ay not e i)puted to the !ud*e,
he should have the patience and circu)spection to *ive the opposin*
party a chance to present his evidence even if he thin4s that the
oppositor:s proof )i*ht not e ade.uate to overthrow the case for the
plaintiff. - display of petulance and i)patience in the conduct of the
trial is a nor) of conduct which is inconsistent with the ;cold neutrality
of an i)partial !ud*e;.
16
+he petition, however, has eco)e )oot and acade)ic. 1ecords do not show that in the last local
elections held on "2 (anuary "#22, petitioner was elected to any pulic office.
,AE1E3O1E, the petition is DISMISSED. +he preli)inary in!unction issued y this Court on 7 May
"#%" is BI3+ED. No costs.
SO O1DE1ED.
%ap, &elencio'(errera, Paras and $armiento, ))., concur.

.oo"no"(s
" -nne/ 1ollo, pp. ""6"&.
& -nne/ 0, 1ollo, pp. "%6"#.
7 -nne/ E, 1ollo, pp. &767&.
> Petition, pp. 76'.
' 1ollo, p. $%.
$ ">' SC1- &$2.
% Ibid, pp. &%26&%#.
2 Me)orandu) for the 1espondent Provincial 0oard, p. >.
# "77 SC1- &%".
"C Ibid., p. &%$.