G.R. No. L-16887, November 17, 1920
MIGUEL R. CORNEJO, petitioner, vs. ANDRES GABRIEL, provincial governor of Rizal, and the PROVINCIAL BOARD OF RIZAL, respondents.

FACTS:
Miguel R. Cornejo, the elected municipal president of Pasay, Rizal, was temporarily suspended from office by Provincial Governor Andres Gabriel. The suspension was based on complaints received by the governor against Cornejo for alleged maladministration. The governor, after his own investigation, concluded that the charges affected Cornejo’s official integrity and suspended him pending a formal investigation by the Provincial Board of Rizal. Cornejo filed a petition for mandamus, seeking to restrain the provincial board from proceeding with its investigation and to compel the governor to reinstate him. He argued that his suspension without a prior hearing violated his right to due process. The respondents maintained they were merely complying with the procedure outlined in the Administrative Code.

ISSUE:
Whether the provincial governor’s act of temporarily suspending a municipal officer pending investigation by the provincial board, without first granting the officer a hearing, constitutes a violation of the due process clause.

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court, through Justice Malcolm, denied the petition. The Court held that the temporary suspension of a municipal officer by a provincial governor under Section 2188 of the Administrative Code is an administrative, not a judicial, act. In such administrative proceedings, a prior hearing is not an essential requirement of due process. The law provides a comprehensive procedure where the governor’s initial suspension is merely provisional. The suspended officer is afforded full opportunity to be heard during the subsequent formal investigation before the provincial board. The Court found that the statutory scheme adequately safeguards the officer’s rights, as the suspension is not final and the officer can present his defense before the board. The governor’s power to suspend temporarily without a hearing is a valid exercise of administrative discretion intended to ensure efficient governance and immediate action in cases of alleged official misconduct. The demurrer interposed by the provincial board was sustained, and the petition was dismissed.

Note: The digest reflects the majority opinion. A dissenting opinion, led by Justice Street, argued that the governor’s preliminary investigation should also afford the officer a right to be heard, as the suspension and subsequent filing of charges are consequential acts that require due process from the initial stage.