#1 MIGUEL R. CORNEJO VS.

ANDRES GABRIEL, provincial governor of Rizal, and the

PROVINCIAL BOARD RIZAL, composed of ANDRES GABRIEL, PEDRO MAGLASIN AND
CATALINO S. CRUZ

FACTS:
 The provincial governor of Rizal have been receiving numerous complaints against
the petitioner, municipal president of Pasay.
 Respondent Gabriel conduct an investigation for the complaints.
 Upon investigation, the respondent prov. Governor came to the conclusion that
agreeable to the power conferred upon provincial governors, the municipal
president.
 Without a hearing, Gabriel, provincial governor, temporarily suspended the herein
petitioner and laid the charges before the provincial board for investigation.
 The petitioner seeks mandamus to have the respondents temporarily restrained
from going ahead the investigation and return to him his position. But, it was
interposed based on the ground that the court has no right filed an answer to the
petition.
ISSUE:
Whether or not temporary suspension of the petitioner violated his right to due process
of law considering the petitioners contention that he was deprived of an office and
temporarily suspended without having an opportunity to be heard in his own defense,
and considering further the respondents’ contention that all they have done is to comply
with the requirement of the law (sections 2188-2191 of the Administrative Code) which
they are sworn to enforce.
RULING:
NO, there is no violation of right to due process.
As Judge Cooley, the leading American writer on Constitutional Law, has well said,
Due process of law is not necessarily judicial process by means of which the Government
is carried on, and the order of society maintained, is purely executive or administrative,
which is as much due process of law, as is judicial process. While a day in court is a matter
of right in judicial proceedings, in administrative proceedings it is otherwise since they rest
upon different principles.
The present case is an Administrative case, which is a temporary suspension of the
petitioner being the Municipal President of Pasay. In an Administrative case, it may be
stated, without fear of contradictions that the right to a notice and hearing are not
essential to due process of law. Examples of specifically or summary proceedings
affecting the life, liberty or property of the individual without any hearing are:
 1. Arrest of an offender pending the filing of charges;
2. The restraint of property in tax cases;
3. The granting of preliminary injunctions ex parte; and
4. The suspension of officers or employees by the Governor General of a Bureau
pending an investigation. (Therefore, notice and hearing are not pre requisites
to the suspension of a public officer under a statute which does not provide for
such notice and hearing.)
(NOTE: The petition under the due process of law prohibition, it would be necessary to
consider an office as “property.” It is however, well settled in the United States that a
public office within the sense of Constitutional guarantees of due process of law is NOT a
PROPERY, but a PUBLIC TRUST or AGENCY. “Decisions are numerous to the effect that
public offices are mere agencies or trust, and not property as such” (Taylor vs.
Beckham)…officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people.
As the Governor was, therefore, by the very letter and spirit of the law, required to act
and act promptly, necessarily upon his own findings of fact, we are compelled to hold that
such official action was, under the circumstances, due process (Wilson vs. North Carolina
[1897]).
Furthermore, in this case as in all other instances, the presumption always is that the law
will be followed and that the investigation and the hearing will be impartial. “The
presumption is just as conclusive of executive action, as to its correctness and justness, as
it in favor of judicial action.” We entertain no doubt that the provincial governor, fully
conscious of the trust reposed in him by law, will act only in cases where strong reasons
exist for exercising the power of suspension and upon a high consideration of his duty.
Thus, the provision of section 2188 of the Administrative Code are clear and they do not
offend the due process of law clause of the Philippine Bill of Rights and it is our duty to
apply the law without fear and favor.