1
Alcuaz vs. PSBA, 161 SCRA 7 (1988) G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988
Fact: Petitioners are all bona fide students of the Respondents, while respondents, are the Philippine School of Business
Administration (hereinafter referred to as PSBA) Quezon City. As early as March 22, 1986, the students of the
respondent school and the respondent PSBA, Q.C. had already agreed on certain matters which would govern their
activities within the school. In spite of the above-stated agreement, petitioners felt the need to hold dialogues. Among
others they demanded the negotiation of a new agreement, which demand was turned down by the school, resulting in
mass assemblies and barricades of school entrances. “Subsequently dialogues proved futile.” Finally, petitioners
received uniform letters from respondents giving them 3 days to explain why the school should not take / mete out any
administrative sanction on their direct participation and/or conspiring with others in the commission of tumultuous and
anarchic acts which was answered by the counsel for the students in a reply letter. During the regular enrollment period,
petitioners and other students similarly situated were allegedly blacklisted and denied admission for the second
semester. President of the Student Council filed a complaint with the Director of the MECS against the PSBA for barring
the enrollment of the Student Council Officers and student leaders. Simultaneously on the same date, the student
council wrote the President, Board of Trustees, requesting for a written statement of the school’s decision regarding
their enrollment. Another demand letter was made by Counsel for the students Atty. Alan Romulo Yap, also to the
President, Board of Trustees, to enroll his clients within forty-eight (48) hours. All these notwithstanding, no relief
appeared to be forthcoming, hence this petition. Respondents filed their manifestation and motion stating that pursuant
to this court’s order the school authorities created a special investigating committee to conduct an investigation, which
submitted a report with recommendations. Respondents adopted the recommendations of the Committee and prayed
that the case be dismissed for having become moot. In the resolution the motion of petitioners to compel respondents
to readmit or re-enroll herein petitioners was denied except in the case of three (3) student petitioners cleared by the
investigating committee and who had been recommended to be readmitted or re-enrolled. The Court further resolved
to require respondent school to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt for refusing to reinstate the
intervenors-faculty members in the interim which the Respondents filed the manifestation informing this Court that
they did not refuse to reinstate the intervenors/faculty members; that they were in fact actually reinstated in
compliance with the Court’s temporary mandatory order. Hence, the motion for contempt should be dismissed. Adrian
Avilado Antazo
Issue: Whether there has been deprivation of due process for petitioners who have been barred from re-enrollment and
for intervenors teachers whose services have been terminated as faculty members, on account of their participation in
the demonstration or protest charged by respondents as “anarchic” rallies, and a violation of their constitutional rights
of expression and assembly. Adrian Avilado Antazo
Held: No, According to the minimum standards laid down by the Court to meet the demands of procedural due process
are:Adrian Avilado Antazo
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;Adrian Avilado
Antazo
(2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired:Adrian Avilado
Antazo
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them;Adrian Avilado Antazo
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities
to hear and decide the case.
2
First, both students and teachers were given three (3) days from receipts of letter to explain in writing why the school
should not take / mete out any administrative sanction on them in view of their participation in the commission of
tumultuous and anarchic acts on the dates stated.
Second, The records show that a letter was sent by Atty. Alan Rollo Yap, in behalf of all PSBA students to the President of
the School Mr. Juan D. Lim, explaining why said students are not guilty of the charges filed against them. Similarly, a
faculty member of the PSBA filed as answer in a letter to the same President of the school, where he denied the charges
against him.Adrian Avilado Antazo
Third to fifth was conducted in the investigation conducted by the committee. which after careful scrutiny of the Report
and Recommendation of the Special Investigating Committee shows it does not fall under any of the above exceptions.
On the contrary, it is readily apparent that the investigation conducted was fair, open, exhaustive and adequate.
Accordingly, there appears to be no cogent reason to disturb the finding of said committee and as manifested by the
respondents, the report of said committee has virtually rendered this petition moot and academic.A
3
ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. HON. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULONG [222 SCRA 644; G.R. 99327; 27 MAY 1993]
Facts: Leonardo H. Villa, a first year law student of Petitioner University, died of serious physical injuries at Chinese
General Hospital after the initiation rites of Aquila Legis. Bienvenido Marquez was also hospitalized at the Capitol
Medical Center for acute renal failure occasioned by the serious physical injuries inflicted upon him on the same
occasion. Petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee
which was tasked to investigate and submit a report within 72 hours on the circumstances surrounding the death of
Lennie Villa. Said notice also required respondent students to submit their written statements within twenty-four (24)
hours from receipt. Although respondent students received a copy of the written notice, they failed to file a reply. In the
meantime, they were placed on preventive suspension. The Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating
Committee, after receiving the written statements and hearing the testimonies of several witness, found a prima facie
case against respondent students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline." Respondent
students were then required to file their written answers to the formal charge. Petitioner Dean created
a Disciplinary Board to hear the charges against respondent students. The Board found respondent students guilty of
violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing activities.
However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal, the Board left
the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. Accordingly, Fr. Bernas imposed the penalty of dismissal
on all respondent students. Respondent students filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently enrolled. This was
granted. A TRO was also issued enjoining petitioners from dismissing the respondents. A day after the expiration of the
temporary restraining order, Dean del Castillo created a Special Board to investigate the charges of hazing against
respondent students Abas and Mendoza. This was requested to be stricken out by the respondents and argued that the
creation of the Special Board was totally unrelated to the original petition which alleged lack of due process. This was
granted and reinstatement of the students was ordered.
Issue: Was there denial of due process against the respondent students.
Held: There was no denial of due process, more particularly procedural due process. Dean of the Ateneo Law School,
notified and required respondent students to submit their written statement on the incident. Instead of filing a reply,
respondent students requested through their counsel, copies of the charges. The nature and cause of the accusation
were adequately spelled out in petitioners' notices. Present is the twin elements of notice and hearing.
Respondent students argue that petitioners are not in a position to file the instant petition under Rule 65 considering
that they failed to file a motion for reconsideration first before the trial court, thereby by passing the latter and the
Court of Appeals. It is accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is when the
case involves a question of law, as in this case, where the issue is whether or not respondent students have been
afforded procedural due process prior to their dismissal from Petitioner University.
Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, such as petitioner
university herein, thus:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;
(2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if desired:
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities
to hear and decide the case.
4
Isabelo v. Perpetual Help College of Rizal and DECS [1993]
Facts:
·
A student, Manuelito Isabelo, Jr., filed the instant petition for mandamus with prayer for a writ of mandamus
addressed to DECS to implement its order to re-admit him as a senior graduating student of Perpetual Help College of
Rizal (PHCR)
·
Manuelito was enrolled at the Perpetual Help College of Rizal for BS Criminology. He was elected Public Relations
Officer ("PRO") of the Supreme Student Council
·
He was invited to attend a meeting with PHCR officials on 08 May 1991. He was asked by the VP for Academic
Affairs, Dr. Grace De Leon, to sign Resolution No. 105 that would implement a 20% tuition fee increase for the school
year 1991-1992.
·
Manuelito refused to sign the resolution; instead he asked for a 2-week period to take the matter up with fellow
officers.
·
Since, the administration assured that the request of the student council would be considered favorably, the
petitioner finally signed Resolution No. 105.
·
PHCR announced that it will increase tuition fees in all levels. The student council filed with the DECS a motion for
reconsideration. DECS held the advised that the "collection of the increase (should) be held in abeyance pending the
resolution of (the) matter."
·
The administration dropped Manuelito from PHCR's list of students because of the following reasons:
o Non compliance of CMT requirement as per DECS Order No. 9, S. 1990 and DECS Memorandum No. 80, S. 1991 and
PHCR Internal Memo. No. 891-007;
o No NCEE during the admission in the BS Criminology course;
o Official Admission Credential not yet submitted;
o Void declaration of CMT subjects (MS 11, 12, 21 and 22)
·
He took special training during the semestral break, and he was able to pass it, but PHCR still refused to give him
that accreditation, insisting that he by then had ceased to be a student of PHCR.
·
Manuelito wrote to DECS, which in turn sent their letter to PHCR ordering that students should be allowed to
continue their classes pending the resolution. PHCR did not comply with the directive.
·
Manuelito: Real reason PHCR has voided his enrollment is his active participation in opposing PHCR's application
for tuition fee increase with the DECS.
·
PHCR: invokes "academic freedom" in dropping the petitioner from its roll of students. HE been allowed to enroll
"conditionally" pending the completion of his remedial classes in CMT, in which he failed.
Issue: WON PHCR may drop Manuelito from the list of students. CASE REMANDED.
·
In Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology: admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon the
school and that such an admission is a mere privilege, rather than a right, on the part of the student.
·
In Ateneo de Manila University vs. Capulon: the term "academic freedom" "the freedom to determine on
academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught (and) how it shall be taught," but likewise "who may be
admitted to study."
5
·
However academic freedom is not an unabridged license. It is a privilege that assumes a correlative duty to
exercise it responsibly.
·
In Non vs. Dames II: abandoned Alcuaz vs. PSBA, (that enrollment of a student is a semester-to-semester contract,
and that the school may not be compelled to renew the contract) by recognizing instead the right of a student to be
enrolled for the entire period in order to complete his course. We have also stressed that the contract between the
school and the student, imbued, as it is, with public interest, is not an ordinary contract.
·
Expulsion is disproportionate to his deficiencies in his CMT course. The circumstances show that the PHCR has
strongly been influenced by his participation in questioning PHCR's application for tuition fee increase.
·
However DECS should determine whether the petitioner really deserves to be in senior class or has a number of
school deficiencies to overcome, as the respondent school counters.
6
NON V. JUDGE DAMES - CASE DIGEST - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
FACTS:
Petitioners (Ariel Non, Rex Magana, Alvin Agura, Normandy Occiano, Jorge Dayaon, Lourdes Banares, Bartolome Ibasco,
Emmanuel Barba, Sonny Moreno. Giovani Palma, Joselito Villalon, Luis Santos and Daniel Torres), students in Mabini
Colleges, Inc. in Daet, Camarines Norte, were not allowed to re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for
leading or participating in student mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. They thus filed a petition
in the Regional Trial Court of Daet (Branch 38) seeking their re-admission or re-enrollment to the school, but the trial
court dismissed the petition in an order dated 8 August 1988.
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but this was denied by the trial court on 24 February 1989; stating that they
waived-their privilege to be admitted for re-enrollment with respondent college when they adopted, signed, and used
its enrollment form for the first semester of school year 1988-89.
In addition, for the same semester, they duly signed pledges "to abide and comply with all the rules and regulations laid
down by competent authorities in the College Department or School in which I am enrolled."
Hence, the affected students filed the petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction before the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
WON there was a violation of the students’ right to freedom of speech and assembly.
HELD:
YES. The contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest,
considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory and
regulatory powers over all educational institutions. The authority for schools to refuse enrollment to a student on the
ground that his contract, which has a term of one semester, has already expired, cannot be justified. Still, institutions'
discretion on the admission and enrollment of students as a major component of the academic freedom guaranteed to
institutions of higher learning.
The right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards, however, cannot be utilized to discriminate
against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for otherwise there will be a violation
of their right to equal protection.
Thus, an institution of learning has a contractual obligation to afford its students a fair opportunity to complete the
course they seek to pursue.
However, when a student commits a serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standard, he
forfeits his contractual right; and the court should not review the discretion of university authorities. Excluding students
because of failing grades when the cause for the action taken against them undeniably related to possible breaches of
discipline not only is a denial of due process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair play.
Further, the failures in one or two subjects by some cannot be considered marked academic deficiency. Neither can the
academic deficiency be gauged from the academic standards of the school due to an insufficiency of information.
Herein, the students could have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with the mass actions, but the
penalty that could have been imposed must be commensurate to the offense committed and it must be imposed only
after the requirements of procedural due process have been complied with (Paragraph 145, Manual of Regulations for
Private Schools).
7
But this matter of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of administrative sanctions have become moot and
academic. Petitioners, who have been refused readmission or re-enrollment and who have been effectively excluded
from respondent school for four (4) semesters, have already been more than sufficiently penalized for any breach of
discipline they might have committed when they led and participated in the mass actions that, according to
respondents, resulted in the disruption of classes. To still subject them to disciplinary proceedings would serve no useful
purpose and would only further aggravate the strained relations between petitioners and the officials of respondent
school which necessarily resulted from the heated legal battle here, in the Court of Appeals and before the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of respondent judge dated August 8, 1988 and February 24, 1989 are
hereby ANNULLED. Respondent Mabini College is ORDERED to readmit and to allow the re- enrollment of petitioners, if
they are still so minded, without prejudice to its taking the appropriate action as to petitioners Ariel Non, Joselito
Villalon, George (Jorge) Dayaon and Daniel Torres, if it is shown by their records (Form 137) that they have failed to
satisfy the school's prescribed academic standards.
8
San Agustin vs. Court of Appeals (371 SCRA 346)
06MAR
JESUS SAN AGUSTIN, petitioner,
vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MAXIMO MENEZ, respondents.
[G.R. No. 121940. December 4, 2001]
FACTS:
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) sold to a certain Macaria Vda. de Caiquep a parcel of residential land
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. The following encumbrance was annotated at the back of the title, not to sell,
convey, lease or sublease, or otherwise encumber the property. A day after the issuance of TCT Macaria Vda. de Caiquep
sold the subject lot to private respondent, Maximo Menez, Jr., as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Said TCT was
lost, but private respondent subsequently obtained a duplicate after judicial proceedings. Petitioner was not notified.
Both RTC and CA ruled in favor of private respondent.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is correct that Deed of Sale between Macaria Vda. de Caiquep and private respondent is
null and void in accordance with Par.7 Art.1409 of the New Civil Code.
RULING:
NO. Petitioner’s contention is less than meritorious. In this case, the GSIS, the proper party, has not filed any action for
the annulment of Deed of Sale between them and Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, nor for the forfeiture of the lot in
question. The contract of sale remains valid between the parties, unless and until annulled in the proper suit filed by the
rightful party, the GSIS. The said contract of sale is binding upon the heirs of Macaria Vda. de Caiquep, including
petitioner who alleges to be one of her heirs, in line with the rule that heirs are bound by contracts entered into by their
predecessors-in-interest. Since, both were aware of the existence of the stipulated condition in favor of the original
seller, GSIS, yet both entered into an agreement violating said condition and nullifying its effects, said parties should be
held in estoppel to assail and annul their own deliberate acts.
9
Villaflor vs. Summers G.R. No. 16444, September 8, 1920 41 Phil. 62 (1920)
Facts: The facts are not dispute. In a criminal case pending before the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila,
Emeteria Villaflor and Florentino Souingco are charged with the crime of adultery. On this case coming on for trial before
the Hon. Pedro Concepcion, Judge of First Instance, upon the petitioner of the assistant fiscal for the city of Manila, the
court ordered the defendant Emeteria Villaflor, nor become the petitioner herein, to submit her body to the
examination of one or two competent doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not. The accused refused to obey the
order on the ground that such examination of her person was a violation of the constitutional provision relating to selfincrimination. Thereupon she was found in contempt of court and was ordered to be committed to Bilibid Prison until
she should permit the medical examination required by the court.
Issue: Whether the order to the accused to submit her body to the examination of one or two competent doctors to
determine if she was pregnant is a violation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Held: No, The rule that the constitutional guaranty, that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. The corollary to the
proposition is that, an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. It is a reasonable presumption that in
an examination by reputable and disinterested physicians due care will be taken not to use violence and not to embarass
the patient any more than is absolutely necessary. Indeed, no objection to the physical examination being made by the
family doctor of the accused or by doctor of the same sex can be seen.
As we view it, the object of having criminal laws is to purge the community of persons who violate the laws to the great
prejudice of their fellow men. Criminal procedure, the rules of evidence, and constitutional provisions, are then
provided, not to protect the guilty but to protect the innocent. No rule is intemended to be so rigid as to embarrass the
administration of justice in its endeavor to ascertain the truth. No accused person should be afraid of the use of any
method which will tend to establish the truth.
Obviously a stirring plea can be made showing that under the due process of law cause of the Constitution every person
has a natural and inherent right to the possession and control of his own body. It is extremely abhorrent to one’s sense
of decency and propriety to have the decide that such inviolability of the person, particularly of a woman, can be
invaded by exposure to another’s gaze. “To compel any one, and especially a woman, to lay bare the body, or to submit
to the touch of a stranger, without lawful authority, is an indignity, an assault, and a trespass.” Conceded, and yet, as
well suggested by the same court, even superior to the complete immunity of a person to be let alone is the inherent
which the public has in the orderly administration of justice. Unfortunately, all too frequently the modesty of witnesses
is shocked by forcing them to answer, without any mental evasion, questions which are put to them; and such a
tendency to degrade the witness in public estimation does not exempt him from the duty of disclosure. Between a
sacrifice of the ascertainment of truth to personal considerations, between a disregard of the public welfare for refined
notions of delicacy, law and justice cannot hesitate.
10
UP v. Ayson, Aug. 17, 1989
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; ACADEMIC FREEDOM; ENJOYED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES. — UP, as an
institution of higher learning, enjoys academic freedom — the institutional kind.
2. ID.; ID.; SCOPE. —" (I)t is to be noted that the reference is to the ‘institutions of higher learning’ as the recipients of
this boon. It would follow then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right. It decides for itself its aims
and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the
overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It has a wide sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of
students. This constitutional provision is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion. That would
be to frustrate its purpose, nullify its intent. It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most
conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail the ‘four essential
freedoms’ of a university — to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it
shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study’" (Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of
Theology, 66 SCRA 277).
3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; ACTS OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY WITHIN THEIR AREAS OF COMPETENCE, NOT
CASUALLY OVERTURNED BY COURTS. — The findings of facts by the Board of Regents which led to its decision to phase
out the UPCBHS must be accorded respect, if not finality. Acts of an administrative agency within their areas of
competence must be casually overturned by the courts.
4. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; FREE PUBLIC SECONDARY EDUCATION; COMPLIANCE THEREWITH NOT APPLICABLE TO
INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING, LIKE THE U.P. — A careful perusal of Rep. Act No. 6655 could not lend respondents
a helping hand either. Said Act implements the policy of the State to provide free public secondary education (Sec. 4)
and vests the formulation of a secondary public education curriculum (Sec. 5), the nationalization of public secondary
schools (Sec. 7) and the implementation of the rules and regulations thereof (Sec. 9) upon the Secretary of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). Rep. Act No. 6655 complements Sec. 2 (2), Article XIV of the
Constitution which mandates that the State shall establish and maintain a system of free public secondary education.
However, this mandate is not directed to institutions of higher learning like UP but to the government through the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). As an institution of higher learning enjoying academic freedom,
the UP cannot be compelled to provide for secondary education. However, should UP operate a high school in the
exercise of its academic freedom, Rep. Act No. 6655 requires that the students enrolled therein "shall be free from
payment of tuition and other school fees."