x x x x x x x x x Thusly the question on the validity of the expulsion of some

X x x x x x x x x thusly the question on the validity

This preview shows page 13 - 14 out of 24 pages.

x x x x x x x x x " Thusly, the question on the validity of the expulsion of some of the members of the CHURCH was squarely raised and frontally resolved in the decision rendered in SEC EB Case No. 389. " 38 (Emphasis ours) Clearly, the issuance by the SEC en banc of its July 31, 1996 order in SEC EB Case No. 484, which reopened the very same issue of the validity of the expulsion proceedings, completely reversing its final and executory en banc decision of July 11, 1994 (SEC EB Case No. 389) , is certainly in gross disregard of the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial determinations. The Court of Appeals is, therefore, correct in voiding the SEC en banc orders dated July 31, 1996 and January 29, 1997 in SEC EB Case No. 484, thereby upholding the expulsion of petitioners and others by the Board of Directors on August 30, 1993. In this regard, what we said in Fortich vs. Corona, et al . 39 bears repeating: "The orderly administration of justice requires that the judgments/resolutions of a court or quasi-judicial body must reach a point of finality set by the law, rules and regulations . The noble purpose is to write finis to disputes once and for all. This is a fundamental principle in our justice system , without which there would be no end to litigations. Utmost respect and adherence to this principle must always be maintained by those who wield the power of adjudication. Any act which violates such principle must immediately be struck down ." 40 Let it not be said that the denial of the present petitions, even on this ground alone, is a mere technicality. In the aforecited case of Fortich vs. Corona , we held that once a case had been resolved with finality, vested rights were acquired by the winning party. 41 Consequently, the rule on finality of decisions, orders or resolutions of a judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative body is " not a question of technicality but of substance and merit ," 42 the underlying consideration therefor being the protection of the substantive rights of the winning party. 43 In the succinct words of Mr. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban in the case of Videogram Regulatory Board vs. Court of Appeals, et al ., 44 "Just as a losing party has the right to file an appeal within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the resolution of his/her case .’’ Be that as it may, we find baseless petitioners’ claim that their expulsion was executed without prior notice or due process. In the first place, the By-laws of the CHURCH, which the members have expressly adhered to, does not require the Board of Directors to give prior notice to the erring or dissident members in cases of expulsion. This is evident from the procedure for expulsion prescribed in Article VII (paragraph 4) of the By-laws, which reads: "4. If it is brought to the notice of the Board of Directors that any member has failed to observe any regulations and By-laws of the Institution (CHURCH) or the conduct of any member has been dishonorable or
Image of page 13
Image of page 14

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture