Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-68288 July 11, 1986 DIOSDADO GUZMAN, ULYSSES URBIZTONDO, and ARIEL RAMACULA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY and DOMINGO L. JHOCSON in his capacity as President of National University,respondents. Efren H. Mercado and Haydee Yorac for petitioners. Samson S. Alcantara for respondents.

NARVASA, J.: Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel Ramacula, students of respondent National University, have come to this Court to seek relief from what they describe as their school's "continued and persistent refusal to allow them to enrol." In their petition "for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction" dated August 7, 1984, they allege: 1) that respondent University's avowed reason for its refusal to re-enroll them in their respective courses is "the latter's participation in peaceful mass actions within the premises of the University. 2) that this "attitude of the (University) is simply a continuation of its cavalier if not hostile attitude to the student's exercise of their basic constitutional and human rights already recorded in Rockie C. San Juan vs. National University, S.C. G.R. No. 65443 (1983) and its utter contempt for the principle of due process of law to the prejudice of petitioners;" and 3) that "in effect petitioners are subjected to the extreme penalty of expulsion without cause or if there be any, without being informed of such cause and without being afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Berina v. Philippine Maritime Institute (117 SCRA 581 [1983]). In the comment filed on September 24, 1986 for respondent University and its President pursuant to this Court's requirement therefor 1 , respondents make the claim: 1) that "petitioners' failure to enroll for the first semester of the school year 1984-1985 is due to their own fault and not because of their allegedexercise of their constitutional and human rights;" 2) that petitioner Urbiztondo, sought to re-enroll only on July 5, 1986 "when the enrollment period was already closed;"

3) that as regards petitioner Guzman, his "academic showing" was "poor", "due to his activities in leading boycotts of classes"; that when his father was notified of this development sometime in August, 1982, the latter had demanded that his son "reform or else we will recall him to the province"; that Guzman was one of the petitioners in G.R. No. 65443 entitled "Rockie San Juan, et al. vs. National University, et al.," at the hearing of which on November 23, 1983 this Court had admonished "the students involved (to) take advantage and make the most of the opportunity given to them to study;" that Guzman "however continued to lead or actively participate in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein;" that moreover, Guzman "is facing criminal charges for malicious mischief before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (Crim. Case No. 066446) in connection with the destruction of properties of respondent University on September 12, 1983 ", and "is also one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 8320483 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila entitled 'National University, Inc. vs. Rockie San Juan et al.' for damages arising from destruction of university properties 4) that as regards petitioner Ramacula, like Guzman "he continued to lead or actively participate, contrary to the spirit of the Resolution dated November 23, 1983 of this ... Court (in G.R. No. 65443 in which he was also one of the petitioners) and to university rules and regulations, within university premises but without permit from university officials in activities that disturbed or disrupted classes;" and 5) that petitioners have "failures in their records, (and) are not of good scholastic standing. " Respondents close their comment with the following assertions, to wit: 1) By their actuations, petitioners must be deemed to have forfeited their privilege, if any, to seek enrollment in respondent university. The rights of respondent university, as an institution of higher learning, must also be respected. It is also beyond comprehension why petitioners, who continually despise and villify respondent university and its officials and faculty members, should persist in seeking enrollment in an institution that they hate. 2) Under the circumstances, and without regard to legal technicalities, it is not to the best interest of all concerned that petitioners be allowed to enroll in respondent university. 3) In any event, petitioners' enrollment being on the semestral basis, respondents cannot be compelled to enroll them after the end of the semester. On October 2, 1984 this Court issued a resolution reading as follows: ... Acting on the Comment submitted by respondent, the Court Resolved to NOTE the same and to require a REPLY to such Comment. The Court further Resolved to ISSUE a MANDATORY INJUNCTION, enjoining respondent to allow the enrolment of petitioners for the coming semester without prejudice to any disciplinary proceeding to which any or all of them may be subjected with their right to lawful defense recognized and respected. As regards petitioner Diosdado Guzman, even if it be a fact that there is a pending criminal charge against him for malicious mischief, the Court nonetheless is of the

opinion that, as above-noted, without prejudice to the continuation of any disciplinary proceeding against him, that he be allowed to resume his studies in the meanwhile. As shown in Annex 2 of the petition itself, Mr. Juan P. Guzman, father of said petitioner, is extending full cooperation with petitioners to assure that whatever protest or grievance petitioner Guzman may have would be ventilated in a lawful and peaceful manner. Petitioners' REPLY inter alia 1) denied that Urbiztondo attempted to enroll only on July 5, 1984 (when enrollment was already closed), it being alleged that "while he did try to enroll that day, he also attempted to do so several times before that date, all to no avail, because respondents ... persistently refused to allow him to do so" respondents' ostensible reason being that Urbiztondo (had) participated in mass actions ... within the school premises," although there were no existing disciplinary charge against petitioner Urbiztondo" at the time; 2) asserted that "neither the text nor the context of the resolution 2 justifies the conclusion that "petitioners' right to exercise their constitutional freedoms" had thereby been restricted or limited; and 3) alleged that "the holding of activities (mass action) in the school premises without the permission of the school ... can be explained by the fact that the respondents persistently refused to issue such permit repeatedly sought by the students. " On November 23, 1984, this Court promulgated another resolution, this time reading as follows: ... The Court, after considering the pleadings filed and deliberating on the issues raised in the petition for extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction as well as the respondents' comment on the petition and the reply of counsel for petitioners to the respondents' comment, Resolved to (a) give DUE COURSE to the petition; (b) consider the respondents' comment as ANSWER to the petition; and (c) require the parties to file their respective MEMORANDA within twenty (20) days from notice. ... . Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or participated "in activities within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes therein" 3 or perpetrated acts of "vandalism, coercion and intimidation, slander, noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of University authority." 4 Parenthetically, the pendency of a civil case for damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner Guzman, cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or debarment from re-enrollment. Also apparent is the omission of respondents to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by which students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing. Under the Education Act of 1982, 5 the petitioners, as students, have the right among others "to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to

graduation, except in case of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations." 6Petitioners were being denied this right, or being disciplined, without due process, in violation of the admonition in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools 7 that "(n)o penalty shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in ... (the) Manual and/or in the school rules and regulations as duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall have been conducted." 8 This Court is therefore constrained, as in Berina v. Philippine Maritime Institute, 9 to declare illegal this act of respondents of imposing sanctions on students without due investigation. Educational institutions of course have the power to "adopt and enforce such rules as may be deemed expedient for ... (its) government, ... (this being)" incident to the very object of incorporation, and indispensable to the successful management of the college." 10 The rules may include those governing student discipline. Indeed, the maintenance of "good school discipline" is a duty specifically enjoined on "every private school" by the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools; 11 and in this connection, the Manual further provides that... The school rules governing discipline and the corresponding sanctions therefor must be clearly specified and defined in writing and made known to the students and/or their parents or guardians. Schools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary from time to time effective as of the date of their promulgation unless otherwise specified.12 But, to repeat, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. And it bears stressing that due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross-examination is not, 'contrary to petitioners' view, an essential part thereof. There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shag 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. WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners to reenroll or otherwise continue with their respective courses, without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings to which any or all of them may be subjected in accordance with the standards herein set forth. SO ORDERED. Teehankee, CJ., Abad Santos, Feria, Yap, Fernan, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz and Paras, JJ., concur.

Footnotes 1 Resolution, Aug. 14, 1986. 2 In G.R. No. 65443 dated Nov. 23,1983, supra 3 Par. 3 (c), Comment; p. 11, rollo. 4 Par. 1, Memorandum of Respondents; p. 75, rollo. 5 B.P. Blg. 232, eff. Sept. 12, 1982; see Villar v. Technological Institute, etc., 135 SCRA 706, 710, citing Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 6 Sec. 9 (2); See also, par. 107, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. 7 Promulgated on the authority of the Private School Law, Act 2706. 8 Par. 145, emphasis supplied. 9 117 SCRA 581. 10 Pratt vs. Wheaton College, 40 Ill 186, cited in "The Law on Schools and Students," Dizon, A., Revised Ed., p. 29. 11 Supra; footnote 7; See Art.XV, Sec. 8 (4), 1973 Constitution.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.76353 September 29,1989 SOPHIA ALCUAZ, MA. CECILIA ALINDAYU, BERNADETTE ANG, IRNA ANONAS, MA. REMEDIOS BALTAZAR, CORAZON BUNDOC, JOHN CARMONA, ANNA SHEILA DINOSO, RAFAEL ENCARNACION, ANNALIZA EVIDENTE, FRANCIS FERNANDO, ZENNY GUDITO, EDGAR LIBERATO, JULIET LIPORADA, GABRIEL MONDRAGON, JOSE MARIA PACKING, DOMINIC PETILLA, MA. SHALINA PITOY, SEVERINO RAMOS, VICTOR SANTIAGO, CAROLINA SARMIENTO, FERDINAND TORRES, RICARDO VENTIGAN and other students of the PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (Q.C.) similarly situated, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Quezon City Branch (PSBA), DR. JUAN D. LIM, in his capacity as President and Chairman of the Board of Trustees of PSBA, ATTY. BENJAMIN P. PAULINO, in his capacity as Vice- President for Admission and Registration, MR. RUBEN ESTRELLA, in his capacity as Officer-in-Charge, MR. RAMON AGAPAY, in his capacity as Director of the Office of Student Affairs and MR. ROMEO RAFER, in his capacity as Chief Security of PSBA, respondents. RESOLUTION PARAS, J.: On May 2, 1988, this Court through its Second Division rendered a Decision in the instant case which prodded the Intervenor Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) to file a motion for reconsideration. Its argument hinges on the pronouncement that x x x. Likewise, it is provided in the Manual, that the "written contracts" required for college teachers are for one semester. It is thus evident that after the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with the students or with intervening teachers. Such being the case, charge of denial of due process is untenable. It is time-honored principle that contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties. x x x (p. 12, Decision, italics supplied).(p. 874875, Rollo) with the allegedly inevitable consequence of extenuating the pernicious practice of management to arbitrarily and wantonly terminate teachers simply because their contracts of employment have already lapsed. The motion likewise points out the fact that two of the faculty members, namely Mr. Asser (Bong) Tamayo, and Mr. Rene Encarnacion, supposedly found guilty by the Investigating Committee headed by Mr. Antonio M. Magtalas (p. 342, Rollo), had been issued permanent appointments (not mere temporary contracts) by no less than the President of the School himself. The appointment of Mr. Asser (Bong) Tamayo dated August 9, 1986 (p. 887, Rollo) can attest to this claim. It is on the basis of the foregoing that We hereby amend Our previous statements on the matter.

In a recent Decision, 1 this Court had the opportunity to quite emphatically enunciate the precept that full-time teachers who have rendered three (3) years of satisfactory service shall be considered permanent (par. 75 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools). Thus, having attained a permanent status, they cannot be removed from office except for just cause and after due process. Now applying the same principle in the case at bar, Mr. Asser (Bong) Tamayo having stayed in the Philippine School of Business Administration, Quezon City Branch (PSBA, for brevity) for three and one-half (3 1/2) years (in a full-time capacity) may be deemed a permanent faculty member provided, of course, the services rendered have been satisfactory to the school. However, because the investigation showed that Mr. Tamayo had participated in the unlawful demonstration, his services cannot be deemed satisfactory. In the case of Mr. Rene Encarnacion, and Mr. Severino Cortes, Jr. who taught in PSBA for two and one-half (2 1/2) years and one and one-half (1 1/2) years respectively, to them a permanent status cannot be accorded for failure to meet the minimum requirement of three (3) years set by the aforementioned Manual of Regulations. Of equal importance, at this point, is the fact that the letter of appointment had been extended only to Mr. Tamayo and not to Mr. Encarnacion, neither to Mr. Cortes, Jr. WHEREFORE, for the reasons adverted to hereinabove, the motion for reconsideration, except insofar as We have made the aforementioned clarificatory statements about the tenure of full-time teachers and professors, is hereby DENIED. In conclusion, We wish to reiterate that while We value the right of students to complete their education in the school or university of their choice, and while We fully respect their right to resort to rallies and demonstrations for the redress of their grievances and as a part of their freedom of speech and their right to assemble, still such rallies, demonstrations, and assemblies must always be conducted peacefully, and without resort to intimidation, coercion, or violence. Academic freedom in all its forms, demands the full display of discipline. To hold otherwise would be to subvert freedom into degenerate license. SO ORDERED. Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur. Gutierrez, Jr., J., concur in the result. Melencio-Herrera, J., Except for the general statement that students' enrollment is limited to per semester, I concur. Regalado, J., took no part. Cortes, J., Concurring and dissenting in a separate opinion. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Feliciano, JJ., Join in Mme. Justice Cortes' concurring and dissenting opinion.

Separate Opinions

CRUZ, J., dissenting: Like Mr. Justice Sarmiento, I am also disturbed by the ruling of the majority sustaining the disciplinary action taken against the students for what, I consider a valid exercise of their freedom of expression. The circumstance that the demonstrations were attended by some disorder is not in my view sufficient justification for the curtailment of their right, much less for their punishment. And I do not agree either that the sanctions may be sustained because some of the students were academically deficient, for the truth is that they were denied re-enrollment not because of such deficiency but because of the demonstrations. Surely, freedom of expression is not only for the intelligent. I also have my misgivings about the ruling of the Court that a student's enrollment is from semester to semester and may be terminated at will by the school after each period. I submit that when a student is enrolled for a particular course, the implicit understanding is that he is entitled to remain in the school until he graduates, subject only to the usual academic, financial and other reasonable requirements. For these reasons, I must also dissent.

SARMIENTO, J., dissenting: I reiterate in the strongest terms possible, my dissent in the Decision of May 2, 1988. Let it also be attached and incorporated by reference hereto. In my opinion, the majority has ignored, by inadvertence or design, the constitutional underpinnings supporting the case. I also hold as untenable, sarcastic, and condescending what would come down, to all intents and purposes, as the disposition of the motion for reconsideration: In conclusion, We wish to reiterate that while We value the right of students to complete their education in the school or university of their choice, and while We fully respect their right to resort to rallies and demonstrations for the redress of their grievances and as a part of their freedom of speech and their right to assemble, still such rallies, demonstrations, and assemblies must always be conducted peacefully, and without resort to intimidation, coercion, or violence. Academic freedom in all its forms, demands the full display of discipline. To hold otherwise would be to subvert freedom into degenerate license. 1 The question, precisely, is whether or not the "rallies, demonstrations, and assemblies" 2 had been conducted with "resort to intimidation, coercion, or violence." 3 The majority would have it, so it appears from the Resolution and so I would make it out therefrom, that the fact alone that the petitioning students had held the questioned gathering en masse, they, ergo, had been guilty of "intimidation, coercion, or violence." 4 In my brethren's disposition of May 2, 1988, reference was made on alleged "noisy demonstrations" 5 but that was all. There was no mention, indeed, any evidence, of "intimidation, coercion, or violence" 6 that would warrant a judicial rebuke.

In my dissent (on the main Decision), I alluded to two cases, both landmark in character: Malabanan v. Ramento 7and U.S. vs. Apurado. 8 I turn to Ramento: x x x If in the course of such demonstration with an enthusiastic audience goading them on, utterances, extremely critical, at times even vitriolic, were let loose, that is quite understandable. Student leaders are hardly the timid, diffident types. They would be ineffective if during a rally they speak in the guarded and judicious language of the academe. At any rate, even a sympathetic audience is not disposed to accord full credence to their fiery exhortations. They take into account the excitement of the occasion, the propensity of speakers to exaggerate, the exuberance of youth. They may give the speakers the benefit of their applause, but with the activity taking place in the school premises and during the daytime, no clear and present danger of public disorder is discernible. 9 I also advert to Apurado: It is rather expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule, will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. But if the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every instance of such disorderly conduct by individual members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize the assembly as seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities, then the right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances would become a delusion and a snare and the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceable manner would expose all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they sought to attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor, but the utmost discretion must be exercised in drawing the line between disorderly and seditious conduct and between an essentially peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising. 10 The foregoing are principles well-entrenched in the annals of Philippine jurisprudence. The instant Resolution, and much to my regret, undoes all that. It also undoes what Ramento has so eloquently written 8. It does not follow, however, that petitioners can be totally absolved for the events that transpired. Admittedly, there was a violation of the terms of the permit. The rally was held at a place other than that specified, in the second floor lobby, rather than the basketball court, of the VMAS building of the University. Moreover, it was continued longer than the period allowed. According to the decision of respondent Ramento, the "concerted activity [referring to such assembly] went on until 5:30 p.m." Private respondents could thus, take disciplinary action. On those facts, however, an admonition, even a censure-certainly not a suspension could be the appropriate penalty. Private respondents could and did take umbrage at the fact that in view of such infraction considering the places where and the time when the demonstration took place there was a disruption of the classes and stoppage of work of the non-academic personnel. They would not be unjustified then if they did take a much more serious view of the matter. Even then a one-year period of suspension is much too severe. While the discretion of both respondent University and respondent Ramento is recognized, the rule of reason, the dictate of fairness calls for a much lesser penalty. If the concept of proportionality between the offense committed and the sanction imposed is not followed, an element of arbitrariness intrudes. That would give rise to a due process question. To avoid this constitutional objection, it is the holding of this Court that a one-week suspension would be punishment enough. 11

Separate Opinions CRUZ, J., dissenting: Like Mr. Justice Sarmiento, I am also disturbed by the ruling of the majority sustaining the disciplinary action taken against the students for what, I consider a valid exercise of their freedom of expression. The circumstance that the demonstrations were attended by some disorder is not in my view sufficient justification for the curtailment of their right, much less for their punishment. And I do not agree either that the sanctions may be sustained because some of the students were academically deficient, for the truth is that they were denied re-enrollment not because of such deficiency but because of the demonstrations. Surely, freedom of expression is not only for the intelligent. I also have my misgivings about the ruling of the Court that a student's enrollment is from semester to semester and may be terminated at will by the school after each period. I submit that when a student is enrolled for a particular course, the implicit understanding is that he is entitled to remain in the school until he graduates, subject only to the usual academic, financial and other reasonable requirements. For these reasons, I must also dissent.

SARMIENTO, J., dissenting: I reiterate in the strongest terms possible, my dissent in the Decision of May 2, 1988. Let it also be attached and incorporated by reference hereto. In my opinion, the majority has ignored, by inadvertence or design, the constitutional underpinnings supporting the case. I also hold as untenable, sarcastic, and condescending what would come down, to all intents and purposes, as the disposition of the motion for reconsideration: In conclusion, We wish to reiterate that while We value the right of students to complete their education in the school or university of their choice, and while We fully respect their right to resort to rallies and demonstrations for the redress of their grievances and as a part of their freedom of speech and their right to assemble, still such rallies, demonstrations, and assemblies must always be conducted peacefully, and without resort to intimidation, coercion, or violence. Academic freedom in all its forms, demands the full display of discipline. To hold otherwise would be to subvert freedom into degenerate license. 1 The question, precisely, is whether or not the "rallies, demonstrations, and assemblies" 2 had been conducted with "resort to intimidation, coercion, or violence." 3 The majority would have it, so it appears from the Resolution and so I would make it out therefrom, that the fact alone that the petitioning students had held the questioned gathering en masse, they, ergo, had been guilty of "intimidation, coercion, or violence." 4 In my brethren's disposition of May 2, 1988, reference was

made on alleged "noisy demonstrations" 5 but that was all. There was no mention, indeed, any evidence, of "intimidation, coercion, or violence" 6 that would warrant a judicial rebuke. In my dissent (on the main Decision), I alluded to two cases, both landmark in character: Malabanan v. Ramento 7and U.S. vs. Apurado. 8 I turn to Ramento: x x x If in the course of such demonstration with an enthusiastic audience goading them on, utterances, extremely critical, at times even vitriolic, were let loose, that is quite understandable. Student leaders are hardly the timid, diffident types. They would be ineffective if during a rally they speak in the guarded and judicious language of the academe. At any rate, even a sympathetic audience is not disposed to accord full credence to their fiery exhortations. They take into account the excitement of the occasion, the propensity of speakers to exaggerate, the exuberance of youth. They may give the speakers the benefit of their applause, but with the activity taking place in the school premises and during the daytime, no clear and present danger of public disorder is discernible. 9 I also advert to Apurado: It is rather expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule, will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. But if the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every instance of such disorderly conduct by individual members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize the assembly as seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities, then the right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances would become a delusion and a snare and the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceable manner would expose all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they sought to attain did not happen to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor, but the utmost discretion must be exercised in drawing the line between disorderly and seditious conduct and between an essentially peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising. 10 The foregoing are principles well-entrenched in the annals of Philippine jurisprudence. The instant Resolution, and much to my regret, undoes all that. It also undoes what Ramento has so eloquently written 8. It does not follow, however, that petitioners can be totally absolved for the events that transpired. Admittedly, there was a violation of the terms of the permit. The rally was held at a place other than that specified, in the second floor lobby, rather than the basketball court, of the VMAS building of the University. Moreover, it was continued longer than the period allowed. According to the decision of respondent Ramento, the "concerted activity [referring to such assembly] went on until 5:30 p.m." Private respondents could thus, take disciplinary action. On those facts, however, an admonition, even a censure-certainly not a suspension could be the appropriate penalty. Private respondents could and did take umbrage at the fact that in view of such infraction-considering the places where and the time when the demonstration took place there was a disruption of the classes and stoppage of work of the non-academic personnel. They would not be unjustified then if they did take a much more serious view of the matter. Even then a one-year period of suspension is much too severe. While the discretion of both respondent University and respondent Ramento is recognized, the rule of reason, the dictate of fairness calls for a much lesser penalty. If the concept of proportionality between the offense committed and the sanction imposed is not followed, an element of

arbitrariness intrudes. That would give rise to a due process question. To avoid this constitutional objection, it is the holding of this Court that a one-week suspension would be punishment enough. 11 Footnotes 1 Labajo, et al. v. Alejandro, et al., G.R. NO. 80383, Sept. 26, 1988. SARMIENTO'S Separate Opinion Footnotes: 1 Alcuaz, et al. v. PSBA Q.C., 3-4. 2 Supra, 3. 3 Supra, 4. 4 Supra. 5 Alcuaz, et al. v. PSBA Q.C., G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988,14. 6 Alcuaz, et al. v. PSBA Q.C., supra 4. 7 No. 62270, 70, 21. 1984, 129 SCRA 359. 8 7 Phil. 422 (1907). 9 Malabanan v. Ramento, supra, 369. 10 U.S. v. Apurado, supra, 426.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 89317 May 20, 1990 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, petitioners, vs. HON. SANCHO DANES II, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of 5th Regional Trial Court, Br. 38, Daet, Camarines Norte; and MABINI COLLEGES, INC., represented by its president ROMULO ADEVA and by the chairman of the Board of Trustees, JUSTO LUKBAN, respondents. Antonio A. Ayo Jr. and Soliman M. Santos, Jr., for petitioners Pedro A. Venida Agustin A. Ferrer and Gil F. Echaro for private respondents.

CORTES, J.: Petitioners urge the Court en banc to review and reverse the doctrine laid down in Alcuaz, et al. v. Philippine School of Business Administration, et al., G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988, 161 SCRA 7, to the effect that a college student, once admitted by the school, is considered enrolled only for one semester and, hence, may be refused readmission after the semester is over, as the contract between the student and the school is deemed terminated. Petitioners, students in private respondent 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. The subject of the protests is not, however, made clear in the pleadings. Petitioners filed a petition in the court a quo seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to the school, but the trial court dismissed the petition in an order dated August 8, 1988; the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, and the fact that the ruling in the Alcuaz vs. PSBA is exactly on the point at issue in this case but the authority of the school regarding admission of students, save as a matter of compassionate equity when any of the petitioners would, at the least, qualify for re-enrollment, this petition is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED. [Rollo, p. 12-A.]

A motion for reconsideration was filed, but this was denied by the trial court on February 24, 1989 in this wise: Perhaps many will agree with the critical comment of Joaquin G. Bernas S.J., and that really there must be a better way of treating students and teachers than the manner ruled (not suggested) by the Supreme Court, the Termination of Contract at the end of the semester, that is. But applicable rule in the case is that enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sophia Alcuaz, et al. vs. Philippine School of Business Administration, Quezon City Branch (PSBA), et al., G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988; that of the termination at the end of the semester, reason for the critical comments of Joaquin G. Bernas and Doods Santos, who both do not agree with the ruling. Petitioners' claim of lack of due process cannot prosper in view of their failure to specifically deny respondent's affirmative defenses that "they were given all the chances to air their grievances on February 9, 10, 16, and 18, 1988, and also on February 22, 1988 during which they were represented by Atty. Jose L. Lapak" and that on February 22, 1988, the date of the resumption of classes at Mabini College, petitioners continued their rally picketing, even though without any renewal permit, physically coercing students not to attend their classes, thereby disrupting the scheduled classes and depriving a great majority of students of their right to be present in their classes. Against this backdrop, it must be noted that the petitioners 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. Said form specifically states that: The Mabini College reserves the right to deny admission of students whose scholarship and attendance are unsatisfactory and to require withdrawal of students whose conduct discredits the institution and/or whose activities unduly disrupts or interfere with the efficient operation of the college. Students, therefore, are required to behave in accord with the Mabini College code of conduct and discipline. In addition, for the same semester, petitioners duly signed pledges which among others uniformly reads: In consideration of my admission to the Mabini College and of my privileges as student of this institution, I hereby pledge/ promise under oath 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. Specifically: xxx xxx xxx 3. I will respect my Alma Matter the Mabini College, which I represent and see to it that I conduct myself in such a manner that the college wig not be put to a bad light; xxx xxx xxx

9. I will not release false or unauthorized announcement which tend to cause confusion or disrupt the normal appreciation of the college. Moreover, a clear legal right must first be established for a petition for mandamus to prosper (Sec. 3, Rule 65). It being a mere privilege and not a legal right for a student to be enrolled or reenrolled, respondent Mabini College is free to admit or not admit the petitioners for re-enrollment in view of the academic freedom enjoyed by the school in accordance with the Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Garcia vs. Faculty [Admission Committee] (G.R. No. 40779, November 28, 1975) and Tangonon vs.Pano, et al. (L-45157, June 27, 1985). WHEREFORE, premises and jurisprudence considered, and for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration of the order of this Court dated August 8, 1988 is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED. [Rollo pp. 15-16.] Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction. The case was originally assigned to the Second Division of the Court, which resolved on April 10, 1989 to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for proper determination and disposition. The Court of Appeals ordered respondents to comment on the petition and set the application for issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for hearing. After considering the comment and hearing the injunction application, the Court of Appeals resolved on May 22, 1989 to certify the case back to the Supreme Court considering that only pure questions of law were raised. The case was assigned to the Third Division of the Court, which then transferred it to the Court en banc on August 21, 1989 considering that the issues raised are jurisdictional. On September 14, 1989, the Court en bancaccepted the case and required respondents to comment. Respondents filed their comment on November 13, 1989. Petitioners were required to reply. As reply, they filed a pleading entitled "Counter-Comment," to which respondents filed a rejoinder entitled "Reply to Counter-Comment To this petitioners filed a "Rejoinder to Reply." The issues having been joined, the case was deemed submitted. At the heart of the controversy is the doctrine encapsuled in the following excerpt from Alcuaz: It is beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one semester. It is provided in Paragraph 137 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester. Likewise, it is provided in the Manual, that the "written contracts" required for college teachers are for "one semester." It is thus evident that after the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with the students or with the intervening teachers. Such being the case, the charge of denial of due process is untenable. It is a time-honored principle that contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties (Henson vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 72456, February 19, 1987, citing: Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 99 SCRA 722; Escano vs. Court of Appeals, 100 SCRA 197). The contract having been terminated, there is no more contract to speak of. The school cannot be compelled to enter into another contract with said students

and teachers. "The courts, be they the original trial court or the appellate court, have no power to make contracts for the parties.' (Henson vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., supra). [At 161 SCRA 17-18; Emphasis supplied.] In Alcuaz, the Second Division of the Court dismissed the petition filed by the students, who were barred from re-enrolling after they led mass assemblies and put up barricades, but it added that "in the light of compassionate equity, students who were, in view of the absence of academic deficiencies, scheduled to graduate during the school year when this petition was filed, should be allowed to re-enroll and to graduate in due time." [At 161 SCRA 22.] Mr. Justice Sarmiento dissented from the majority opinion. A motion for reconsideration was filed by the dismissed teachers in Alcuaz. The students did not move for reconsideration. The Court en banc, to which the case had been transferred, denied the motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated September 29, 1989, but added as an obiter dictum: In conclusion, We wish to reiterate that while We value the right of students to complete their education in the school or university of their choice, and while We fully respect their right to resort to rallies and demonstrations for the redress of their grievances and as part of their freedom of speech and their right to assemble, still such rallies, demonstrations, and assemblies must always be conducted peacefully, and without resort to intimidation, coercion, or violence. Academic freedom in all its forms, demands the full display of discipline. To hold otherwise would be to subvert freedom into degenerate license. The majority's failure to expressly repudiate the "termination of contract" doctrine enunciated in the decision provoked several dissents on that issue. Although seven (7) members of the Court * disagreed with the Second Division's dismissal of the students petition, a definitive ruling on the issue could not have been made because no timely motion for reconsideration was filed by the students. (As stated above, the motion for reconsideration was filed by the dismissed teachers.) Be that as it may, the reassessment of the doctrine laid down in Alcuaz, insofar as it allowed schools to bar the readmission or re-enrollment of students on the ground of termination of contract, shall be made in this case where the issue is squarely raised by petitioners [Petition, p. 4; Rollo, p. 5]. Initially, the case at bar must be put in the proper perspective. This is not a simple case of a school refusing readmission or re-enrollment of returning students. Undisputed is the fact that the refusal to readmit or re-enroll petitioners was decided upon and implemented by school authorities as a reaction to student mass actions directed against the school. Petitioners are students of respondent school who, after leading and participating in student protests, were denied readmission or reenrollment for the next semester. This is a case that focuses on the right to speech and assembly as exercised by students vis-a-vis the right of school officials to discipline them. Thus, although respondent judge believed himself bound by the ruling in Alcuaz [Order dated August 8, 1988;Rollo, pp. 1212-A], he actually viewed the issue as a conflict between students' rights and the school's power to discipline them, to wit: Students should not be denied their constitutional and statutory right to education, and there is such denial when students are expelled or barred from enrollment for the exercise of their right to free speech and peaceable assembly and/or subjected to disciplinary action without abiding with the requirements of due process. Also, it is

understandable for student leaders to let loose extremely critical and, at times, vitriolic language against school authorities during a student rally. But the right of students is no license and not without limit . . . [Order of February 24, 1989; Rollo, p. 13.] 1. The Student Does Not Shed His Constitutionally Protected Rights at the Schoolgate. Central to the democratic tradition which we cherish is the recognition and protection of the rights of free speech and assembly. Thus, our Constitution provides: Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. [Art. III.] This guarantee is not peculiar to the 1987 Constitution. A similar provision was found in the 1973 Constitution, as amended [Art. VI, sec. 9], the 1935 Constitution, as amended [Art. III, sec. 81, the Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law) [Sec. 3, para. 13], and the Philippine Bill of 1902 [Sec. 15, para. 13]. Thus, as early as 1907, the Court inPeople v. Apurado, 7 Phil. 422, upheld the right to speech and assembly to overturn a conviction for sedition. It said: Section 5 of the Act No. 292 is as follows: All persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by force or outside of legal methods any of the following objects are guilty of sedition: xxx xxx xxx 2. To prevent the Insular Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public official, from freely exercising its or his duties or the due execution of any judicial or administrative order. But this law must not be interpreted so as to abridge "the freedom of speech" or "the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances" guaranteed by the express provisions of section 5 of "the Philippine Bill." xxx xxx xxx It is rather to be expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary, because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule, will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. But if the prosecution be permitted to seize upon every instance of such disorderly conduct by individual members of a crowd as an excuse to characterize the assembly as a seditious and tumultuous rising against the authorities, then the right to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances would become a delusion and a snare and the attempt to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceable manner would expose all those who took part therein to the severest and most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they sought to attain did not happen to

be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be sought out and punished therefor, but the utmost discretion must be exercise in drawing the line between disorderly and seditious conduct and between an essentially peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising. [At pp. 424, 426.] That the protection to the cognate rights of speech and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution is similarly available to students is well-settled in our jurisdiction. In the leading case of Malabanan v. Ramento, G.R. No. 62270, May 21, 1984, 129 SCRA 359, the Court, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Fernando in an en bancdecision, declared: xxx xxx xxx 4. Petitioners invoke their rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. They are entitled to do so. They enjoy like the rest of the citizens the freedom to express their views and communicate their thoughts to those disposed to listen in gatherings such as was held in this case. They do not, to borrow from the opinion of Justice Fortas in Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District, "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." While therefore, the authority of educational institutions over the conduct of students must be recognized, it cannot go so far as to be violative of constitutional safeguards. [At pp. 367-368.] The facts in Malabanan are only too familiar in the genre of cases involving student mass actions: . . . Petitioners were officers of the Supreme Student Council of respondent [Gregorio Araneta] University. They sought and were granted by the school authorities a permit to hold a meeting from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. on August 27, 1982. Pursuant to such permit, along with other students, they held a general assembly at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science (VMAS) the place indicated in such permit, not in the basketball court as therein stated but at the respond floor lobby. At such gathering they manifested in vehement and vigorous language their opposition to the proposed merger of the Institute of Animal Science with the Institute of Agriculture. At 10:30 A.M., the same day, they marched toward the Life Science building and continued their rally. It was outside the area covered by their permit. They continued their demonstration, giving utterance to language severely critical of the University authorities and using megaphones in the process. There was, as a result, disturbance of the classes being held. Also, the non-academic employees, within hearing distance, stopped their work because of the noise created. They were asked to explain on the same day why they should not be held liable for holding an illegal assembly. Then on September 9, 1982, they were informed through a memorandum that they were under preventive suspension for their failure to explain the holding of an illegal assembly in front of the Life Science Building. The validity thereof was challenged by petitioners both before the Court of First Instance of Rizal in a petition for mandamuswith damages against private respondents and before the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sports. On October 20, 1982, respondent Ramento, as Director of the National Capital Region, found petitioners guilty of the charge of having violated par. 146(c) of the Manual for Private Schools more specifically their holding of an illegal assembly which was characterized by the violation of the permit granted resulting in the disturbance of classes and oral defamation. The penalty was suspension for one academic year. . . . [At pp. 363-364.]

The Court found the penalty imposed on the students too severe and reduced it to a one-week suspension. The rule laid down in Malabanan was applied with equal force in three other en banc decisions of the Court. In Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines, G.R. No. 69198, April 17, 1985, 135 SCRA 706, the Court reiterated that the exercise of the freedom of assembly could not be a basis for barring students from enrolling. It enjoined the school and its officials from acts of surveillance, blacklisting, suspension and refusal to re-enroll. But the Court allowed the non-enrollment of students who clearly incurred marked academic deficiency, with the following caveat: xxx xxx xxx 4. The academic freedom enjoyed by ''institutions of higher learning" includes the right to set academic standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for the expulsion of students. Once it has done so, however, that standard should be followed meticulously. It cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. If it does so, then there is a legitimate grievance by the students thus prejudiced, their right to the equal protection clause being disregarded. [At p. 711.] In Arreza v. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, G.R. No. 62297, June 19, 1985, 137 SCRA 94, a case arising from almost the same facts as those in Malabanan, the Court rejected "the infliction of the highly- disproportionate penalty of denial of enrollment and the consequent failure of senior students to graduate, if in the exercise of the cognate rights of free speech and peaceable assembly, improper conduct could be attributed to them. [At p. 98]. In Guzman v. National University, G.R. No. 68288, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 699, respondent school was directed to allow the petitioning students to re-enroll or otherwise continue with their respective courses, without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings that may be conducted in connection with their participation in the protests that led to the stoppage of classes. 2. Permissible Limitations on Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights Within the School . While the highest regard must be afforded the exercise of the rights to free speech and assembly, this should not be taken to mean that school authorities are virtually powerless to discipline students. This was made clear by the Court in Malabanan, when it echoed Tinker v. Des Moines Community School District, 393 US 503, 514: "But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." Thus, in Malabanan, the Court said: xxx xxx xxx 8. It does not follow, however, that petitioners can be totally absolved for the events that transpired. Admittedly, there was a violation of the terms of the permit. The rally was held at a place other than that specified, in the second floor lobby, rather than the basketball court, of the (VMAS) building of the University. Moreover, it was

continued longer than the period allowed. According to the decision of respondent Ramento, the "concerted activity [referring to such assembly went on until 5:30 p.m." Private respondents could thus, take disciplinary action. . . . [ At pp. 370-371]. But, as stated in Guzman, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. Thus: . . . There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) 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. [At pp. 706-707]. Moreover, the penalty imposed must be proportionate to the offense committed. As stated in Malabanan, "[i]f the concept of proportionality between the offense committed and sanction imposed is not followed, an element of arbitrariness intrudes." [At p. 371]. 3. Circumventing Established Doctrine. Malabanan was decided by the Court in 1984. Since then, student mass actions have escalated not only because of political events that unfurled but also because of the constantly raging controversy over increases in tuition fees. But the over-eager hands of some school authorities were not effectively tied down by the ruling inMalabanan. Instead of suspending or expelling student leaders who fell into disfavor with school authorities, a new variation of the same stratagem was adopted by the latter: refusing the students readmission or re-enrollment on grounds not related to, their alleged misconduct of "illegal assembly" in leading or participating in student mass actions directed against the school. Thus, the spate of expulsions or exclusions due to "academic deficiency." 4. The Nature of the Contract Between a School and its Student. The Court, in Alcuaz, anchored its decision on the "termination of contract" theory. But it must be repeatedly emphasized that 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 [See Art. XIV, secs. 1-2, 4(1)]. Respondent school cannot justify its actions by relying on Paragraph 137 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, which provides that "[w]hen a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling . . . for the entire semester for collegiate courses," which the Court in Alcuaz construed as 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. The "termination of contract" theory does not even find support in the Manual. Paragraph 137 merely clarifies that a college student enrolls for the entire semester. It serves to protect schools wherein tuition fees are collected and paid on an installment basis, i.e. collection and payment of the downpayment upon enrollment and the balance before examinations. Thus, even if a student does not complete the semester for which he was enrolled, but has stayed on for more than two weeks, he may be required to pay his tuition fees for the whole semester before he is given his credentials

for transfer. This is the import of Paragraph 137, subsumed under Section VII on Tuition and Other Fees, which in its totality provides: 137. When a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire school year for elementary and secondary courses, and for the entire semester for collegiate courses. A student who transfers or otherwise withdraws, in writing, within two weeks after the beginning of classes and who has already paid the pertinent tuition and other school fees in full or for any length of time longer than one month may be charged ten per cent of the total amount due for the term if he withdraws within the first week of classes, or twenty per cent if within the second week of classes, regardless of whether or not he has actually attended classes. The student may be charged all the school fees in full if he withdraws anytime after the second week of classes. However, if the transfer or withdrawal is due to a justifiable reason, the student shall be charged the pertinent fees only up to and including the last month of attendance. Clearly, in no way may Paragraph 137 be construed to mean that the student shall be enrolled for only one semester, and that after that semester is over his re-enrollment is dependent solely on the sound discretion of the school. On the contrary, the Manual recognizes the right of the student to be enrolled in his course for the entire period he is expected to complete it. Thus, Paragraph 107 states: Every student has the right to enrol in any school, college or university upon meeting its specific requirement and reasonable regulation: Provided, that except in the case of academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulation, the student is presumed to be qualified for enrolment for the entire period he is expected to complete his course without prejudice to his right to transfer. This "presumption" has been translated into a right in Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, the "Education Act of 1982." Section 9 of this act provides: Sec. 9. Rights of Students in School. In addition to other rights, and subject to the limitations prescribed by law and regulations, students and pupils in all schools shall enjoy the following rights: xxx xxx xxx 2. The right to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations. xxx xxx xxx 5. Academic Freedom Not a Ground for Denying Students' Rights. Respondent judge, in his order dated February 24, 1989, stated that "respondent Mabini College is free to admit or not admit the petitioners for re-enrollment in view of the academic freedom enjoyed by the school" [Rollo, p. 16]. To support this conclusion, he cited the cases of Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, G.R. No. L-40779, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 277, and Tangonan v. Pano, G.R. No. L-45157, June 27, 1985, 137 SCRA 245, where the Court emphasized the institutions' discretion on the admission and enrollment of students as a major component of the academic freedom guaranteed to institutions of higher learning.

These cases involve different facts and issues. In Garcia, the issue was whether a female lay student has a clear legal right to compel a seminary for the priesthood to admit her for theological studies leading to a degree. InTangonan, the issue was whether a nursing student, who was admitted on probation and who has failed in her nursing subjects, may compel her school to readmit her for enrollment. Moreover, respondent judge loses sight of the Court's unequivocal statement in Villar that the right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for otherwise there win be a violation of their right to equal protection [At p. 711] 6. Capitol Medical Center and Licup. In support of the action taken by respondent judge, private respondents cite the recent cases of Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82499, October 13, 1989, and Licup v. University of San Carlos, G.R. No. 85839, October 19, 1989, both decided by the First Division of the Court. We find the issues raised and resolved in these two decisions dissimilar from the issues in the present case. In Capitol Medical Center, the Court upheld the decision of the school authorities to close down the school because of problems emanating from a labor dispute between the school and its faculty. The Court ruled that the students had no clear legal right to demand the reopening of the school. On the other hand, in Licup the issue resolved was whether or not the students were afforded procedural due process before disciplinary action was taken against them. Thus, the Court stated: The Court finds no cogent basis for the protestations of petitioners that they were deprived of due process of law and that the investigation conducted was far from impartial and fair. On the contrary, what appear from the record is that the charges against petitioners were adequately established in an appropriate investigation. The imputation of bias and partiality is not supported by the record. . . . Moreover, Licup, far from adopting the "termination of contract" theory in Alcuaz, impliedly rejected it, to wit: While it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue their education, the USC as an educational institution is also entitled to pursue its academic freedom and in the process has the concommitant right to see to it that this freedom is not jeopardized. True, 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. (Emphasis supplied.) 7. The Instant Case.

To justify the school's action, respondents, in their Comment dated November 12, 1989, quoting from their answer filed in the trial court, allege that of the thirteen (13) petitioners eight (8) have incurred failing grades, to wit: a) Ariel Non has not only failed in four (4) subjects but also failed to cause the submission of Form 137 which is a pre-requisite to his re- enrollment and to his continuing as a student of Mabini; b) Rex Magana not only has failed in one (1) subject but also has incomplete grades in four (4) subjects as well as no grades in two (2) subjects; c) Elvin Agura failed in two (2) subjects and has three (3) incomplete grades; d) Emmanuel Barba has failed in one (1) subject, and has to still take CMT 1 1 to 22. He is already enrolled at Ago Foundation; e) Joselito Villalon has incomplete grades in nine (9) subjects; f) Luis Santos has failed in one (1) subject; g) George Dayaon has failed in four (4) subjects and has to remove the incomplete grade in one (1) subject; h) Daniel Torres has failed in five (5) subjects, has to remove incomplete grades in five (5) more objects and has no grade in one (1) subject. [Rollo, p. 79.] Petitioners have not denied this, but have countered this allegation as follows: xxx xxx xxx (11) Petitioners were and are prepared to show, among others, that: a) Three of the 13 of them were graduating. (Admitted in the Answer.) b) Their academic deficiencies, if any, do not warrant non- readmission. (The Answer indicates only 8 of the 13 as with deficiencies.) c) Their breach of discipline, if any, was not serious. d) The improper conduct attributed to them was during the exercise of the cognate rights of free speech and peaceable assembly, particularly a February 1988 student rally. (The crux of the matter, as shown even in the Answer.) e) There was no due investigation that could serve as basis for disciplinary action. (In effect, admitted in the Answer; even Alcuaz required due process.) f) Respondents admit students with worse deficiencies a clear case of discrimination against petitioners for their role in the student rally. (An equal protection question.)

g) Respondent school is their choice institution near their places of residence which they can afford to pay for tertiary education, of which they have already lost one-anda-half school-years in itself punishment enough. [Rollo, p. 86]. Clearly, the five (5) students who did not incur failing marks, namely, Normandy Occiano, Lourdes Banares, Bartolome Ibasco, Sonny Moreno and Giovani Palma, were refused re-enrollment without just cause and, hence, should be allowed to re-enroll. On the other hand, it does not appear that the petitioners were afforded due process, in the manner expressed inGuzman, before they were refused re-enrollment. In fact, it would appear from the pleadings that the decision to refuse them re-enrollment because of failing grades was a mere afterthought. It is not denied that what incurred the ire of the school authorities was the student mass actions conducted in February 1988 and which were led and/or participated in by petitioners. Certainly, 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. Moreover, of the eight (8) students with failing grades, some have only one or two failures, namely, Rex Magana, Elvin Agura, Emmanuel Barba, and Luis Santos. Certainly, their failures cannot be considered marked academic deficiency within the context of the Court's decision in Villar. Then, as to the students who incurred several failing grades, namely, Ariel Non, Joselito Villalon, George (Jorge) Dayaon, and Daniel Torres, it is not clear from respondents' enumeration whether the failures were incurred in only one semester or through the course of several semesters of study in the school. Neither are the academic standards of respondent school, from which we can gauge whether or not these students are academically deficient, alleged by respondents. Thus, while the prerogative of schools to set academic standards is recognized, we cannot affirm respondent school's action as to petitioners Non, Villalon, Dayaon and Torres because of insufficient information. With regard to petitioner Emmanuel Barba who respondents claim has enrolled in Ago Foundation, such fact alone, if true, will not bar him from seeking readmission in respondent school. However, these should not be taken to mean that no disciplinary action could have been taken against petitioners for breach of discipline if the facts had so warranted. In line with the Court's ruling in Malabanan, petitioners could have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with the February 1988 mass actions. But the penalty that could have been imposed must be commensurate to the offense committed and, as set forth inGuzman, it must be imposed only after the requirements of procedural due process have been complied with. This is explicit from the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, which provides in Paragraph 145 that "[n]o penalty shall be imposed upon any student, except for cause as defined in this Manual and/or in the school's rules and regulations duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall have been conducted." 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. SO ORDERED. Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Paras, Gancayco, Bidin, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur. Grio-Aquino, J., is on leave.

Separate Opinions

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring: Like Mr. Justice Teodoro R. Padilla, I had concurred in the majority opinion in Alcuaz, et al., vs. Philippine School of Business Administration, et al., G.R. No. 76353, 2 May 1988, 161 SCRA 7. But, as I had expressed in my vote on the Motion for Reconsideration in the said Alcuaz case "Except for the general statement that students' enrollment is limited to per semester, I concur." In other words, I agree with Mme. Justice Cortes that the "termination of contract doctrine" should be overturned for being a doctrinal error. It is now clear (it was quoted out of context before) that paragraph 137 of the Manual of Regulations for Public Schools falls under Section VII on Tuition and Other Fees and is intended merely to protect schools wherein tuition fees are collected and paid on installment basis. It cannot be construed to mean that a student shall be enrolled for only one semester. As to the power of discipline, my view still is that schools should retain that prerogative, with the caveat that the penalty they impose be proportionate to the offense committed. PADILLA, J., concurring: I concurred in the majority opinion in Alcuaz, et al. vs. Philippine School of Business Administration, et al., G.R. No. 76353, 2 May 1988, 161 SCRA 7 including therefore that portion of the opinion which held that under par. 137, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, a college student in a private school is enrolled only for one (1) semester and that after each semester "the school cannot be compelled to enter into another contract with said students . . . ."

However, after carefully considering the decision penned by Madame Justice Cortes in the case at bar, I am inclined to agree with her that "the contract between the school and students is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education . . . " (p. 15, Decision). It would indeed appear that, consistent with this constitutional priority given to education, par. 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools should be underscored. It provides that every student has the right to enroll in any school college or university upon meeting its specific requirements and reasonable regulations; . . . and that "the student is presumed to be qualified for enrollment for the entire period he is expected to complete the course,without prejudice to his right to transfer." It should be stressed, however, that this right of students to enroll is not designed to leave schools completely helpless to deny enrollment or re- enrollment. For, par. 107 itself of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools still recognizes the right of the school to refuse enrollment in case of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations of the school. SARMIENTO, J., concurring: I have always held that schools are not free to penalize, by administrative sanction or outright expulsion, students on account alone of the fact that they had taken part in mass actions or assemblies. 1 Students, as all persons, enjoy freedom of speech and assembly, right granted by the Constitution, and one nobody may abridge. The opinion of the majority reaffirms this fundamental principle. This case also clarifies the true import of Paragraph 137 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, i.e., that it is intended merely to enable schools to collect fees for the entire semester although the student may not have completed the semester. But in no way may learning institutions use the provision as an excuse to dismiss students after one semester on the ground of termination of contract. The "termination of contract" theory espoused by Alcuaz v. Philippine School of Business Administration 2 has indeed allowed schools to circumvent the guarantees of the Constitution by denying "erring" students of their right to enroll, when the single "error" committed by the students was to participate in political activities. As I said, our students have as much right to disagree whether against school policies or government programs, and whether in or out of the school compound and no prior or subsequent penalty may be inflicted on account of such acts alone. To be sure, the school may punish students for breach of discipline, as, say, for breaking chairs or window panes or for disrupting classes in the course of a demonstration, but they may be penalized for those actions alone and not because of the content of their speech or the vociferousness with which it was said . 3 Moreover, violations of school discipline must be judged on a case to case basis and measured depending on gravity before school authorities may legitimately act. I do not think that the fact that a demonstration has disrupted ongoing classes is a ground for penalizing students taking part therein because a demonstration, from its very nature, is likely to disrupt classes. 4 The school must convincingly show that the demonstrators had deliberately turned to lawlessness, say, by barricading the school gate or the classroom entrances or otherwise prevented nondemonstrating students or members of the faculty from attending a class or publishing one by threats or intimidation. Only in that sense may school heads validly invoke "disruption of classes." As far as discipline is concerned, this Court has laid down guidelines for proper school action. In Malabanan v.Ramento, as in the present case, we held that the punishment must fit the crime,

and in Guzman v. National University, 5 we ruled that before any penalty may be imposed, the students concerned should be allowed to be heard by themselves or representatives. In all cases, the courts should be wary and the school authorities must themselves convince the judge that punishment meted out is due to a real injury done to the school and not for the fact that the students had simply expressed their constitutional right to disagree. As to failing grades, I agree that, as we held in Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines, 6 academic deficiency is a legal basis for, among other things, expulsion. However, as Villar warned, educational institutions must set standard "to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for the expulsion of students, 7and that such standards "should be followed meticulously," 8 and that they "cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech." 9 What this decision makes plain is that the school must pre-set the ground rules for either suspension or expulsion of students by reason of falling marks which must be observed with reasonable uniformity. The school can not use it to spring surprises on students with failing grades, who also happen to be politically active in the campus, after the authorities had long tolerated their poor performance. In this case, our courts must also exercise caution that, as "disruption of classes", resort to "failing grades" is not done to evade the constitutional mandates. I take note of the increasing practice by school heads to simply bar students from enrollment for a host of excuses as a result of their exercise of constitutional rights. I am gratified that the majority has put an end to this practice. I concur fully with Mme. Justice Irene Cortes' ponencia.

Separate Opinions MELENCIO-HERRERA, J., concurring: Like Mr. Justice Teodoro R. Padilla, I had concurred in the majority opinion in Alcuaz, et al., vs. Philippine School of Business Administration, et al., G.R. No. 76353, 2 May 1988, 161 SCRA 7. But, as I had expressed in my vote on the Motion for Reconsideration in the said Alcuaz case "Except for the general statement that students' enrollment is limited to per semester, I concur." In other words, I agree with Mme. Justice Cortes that the "termination of contract doctrine" should be overturned for being a doctrinal error. It is now clear (it was quoted out of context before) that paragraph 137 of the Manual of Regulations for Public Schools falls under Section VII on Tuition and Other Fees and is intended merely to protect schools wherein tuition fees are collected and paid on installment basis. It cannot be construed to mean that a student shall be enrolled for only one semester. As to the power of discipline, my view still is that schools should retain that prerogative, with the caveat that the penalty they impose be proportionate to the offense committed. PADILLA, J., concurring: I concurred in the majority opinion in Alcuaz, et al. vs. Philippine School of Business Administration, et al., G.R. No. 76353, 2 May 1988, 161 SCRA 7 including therefore that portion of the opinion which

held that under par. 137, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, a college student in a private school is enrolled only for one (1) semester and that after each semester "the school cannot be compelled to enter into another contract with said students . . . ." However, after carefully considering the decision penned by Madame Justice Cortes in the case at bar, I am inclined to agree with her that "the contract between the school and students is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education . . . " (p. 15, Decision). It would indeed appear that, consistent with this constitutional priority given to education, par. 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools should be underscored. It provides that every student has the right to enroll in any school college or university upon meeting its specific requirements and reasonable regulations; . . . and that "the student is presumed to be qualified for enrollment for the entire period he is expected to complete the course,without prejudice to his right to transfer." It should be stressed, however, that this right of students to enroll is not designed to leave schools completely helpless to deny enrollment or re- enrollment. For, par. 107 itself of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools still recognizes the right of the school to refuse enrollment in case of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations of the school. SARMIENTO, J., concurring: I have always held that schools are not free to penalize, by administrative sanction or outright expulsion, students on account alone of the fact that they had taken part in mass actions or assemblies. 1 Students, as all persons, enjoy freedom of speech and assembly, right granted by the Constitution, and one nobody may abridge. The opinion of the majority reaffirms this fundamental principle. This case also clarifies the true import of Paragraph 137 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, i.e., that it is intended merely to enable schools to collect fees for the entire semester although the student may not have completed the semester. But in no way may learning institutions use the provision as an excuse to dismiss students after one semester on the ground of termination of contract. The "termination of contract" theory espoused by Alcuaz v. Philippine School of Business Administration 2 has indeed allowed schools to circumvent the guarantees of the Constitution by denying "erring" students of their right to enroll, when the single "error" committed by the students was to participate in political activities. As I said, our students have as much right to disagree whether against school policies or government programs, and whether in or out of the school compound and no prior or subsequent penalty may be inflicted on account of such acts alone. To be sure, the school may punish students for breach of discipline, as, say, for breaking chairs or window panes or for disrupting classes in the course of a demonstration, but they may be penalized for those actions alone and not because of the content of their speech or the vociferousness with which it was said . 3 Moreover, violations of school discipline must be judged on a case to case basis and measured depending on gravity before school authorities may legitimately act. I do not think that the fact that a demonstration has disrupted ongoing classes is a ground for penalizing students taking part therein because a demonstration, from its very nature, is likely to disrupt classes. 4 The school must convincingly show that the demonstrators had deliberately turned to lawlessness, say, by barricading the school gate or the classroom entrances or otherwise prevented non-

demonstrating students or members of the faculty from attending a class or publishing one by threats or intimidation. Only in that sense may school heads validly invoke "disruption of classes." As far as discipline is concerned, this Court has laid down guidelines for proper school action. In Malabanan v.Ramento, as in the present case, we held that the punishment must fit the crime, and in Guzman v. National University, 5 we ruled that before any penalty may be imposed, the students concerned should be allowed to be heard by themselves or representatives. In all cases, the courts should be wary and the school authorities must themselves convince the judge that punishment meted out is due to a real injury done to the school and not for the fact that the students had simply expressed their constitutional right to disagree. As to failing grades, I agree that, as we held in Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines, 6 academic deficiency is a legal basis for, among other things, expulsion. However, as Villar warned, educational institutions must set standard "to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for the expulsion of students, 7and that such standards "should be followed meticulously," 8 and that they "cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech." 9 What this decision makes plain is that the school must pre-set the ground rules for either suspension or expulsion of students by reason of falling marks which must be observed with reasonable uniformity. The school can not use it to spring surprises on students with failing grades, who also happen to be politically active in the campus, after the authorities had long tolerated their poor performance. In this case, our courts must also exercise caution that, as "disruption of classes", resort to "failing grades" is not done to evade the constitutional mandates. I take note of the increasing practice by school heads to simply bar students from enrollment for a host of excuses as a result of their exercise of constitutional rights. I am gratified that the majority has put an end to this practice. I concur fully with Mme. Justice Irene Cortes' ponencia.

Footnotes * Mr. Chief Justice Fernan, Mr. Justice Narvasa, Mme. Justice Herrera, Mr. Justice Cruz, Mr. Justice Feliciano, Mr. Justice Sarmiento, and Mme. Justice Cortes 1 See Alcuaz v. Philippine School of Business Administration, No. 76353, May 2, 1988, 161 SCRA 7, Sarmiento, J., Dissenting. 2 Supra. 3 Malabanan v. Ramento No. 62270, May 21, 1984, 129 SCRA 359 4 See US v. Apurado, 7 Phil. 422 (1907). 5 No. 68288, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 699. 6 No. 69198, April 17, 1985, 135 SCRA 706. 7 Supra 711.

8 Supra

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 99327 May 27, 1993 ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY, FATHER JOAQUIN BERNAS, S. J., DEAN CYNTHIA ROXAS-DEL CASTILLO, JUDGE RUPERTO KAPUNAN, JR., JUSTICE VENICIO ESCOLIN, FISCAL MIGUEL ALBAR, ATTYS. MARCOS HERRAS, FERDINAND CASIS, JOSE CLARO TESORO, RAMON CAGUIOA, and RAMON ERENETA. petitioners, vs. HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, Presiding Judge of the RTC-Makati, Br. 134, ZOSIMO MENDOZA, JR. ERNEST MONTECILLO, ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO AMADO SABBAN, DALMACIO LIM JR., MANUEL ESCONA and JUDE FERNANDEZ, respondents. Bengzon, Zarraga, Narciso, Cudala, Pecson, Benson & Jimenes for petitioners. Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De Los Angeles for petitioner Cynthia Roxas-del Castillo. Fabregas, Calida & Remollo for private respondents.

ROMERO, J.: In 1975, the Court was confronted with a mandamus proceeding to compel the Faculty Admission Committee of the Loyola School of Theology, a religious seminary which has a working arrangement with the Ateneo de Manila University regarding accreditation of common students, to allow petitioner who had taken some courses therein for credit during summer, to continue her studies. 1 Squarely meeting the issue, we dismissed the petition on the ground that students in the position of petitioner possess, not a right, but a privilege, to be admitted to the institution. Not having satisfied the prime and indispensable requisite of a mandamus proceeding since there is no duty, much less a clear duty, on the part of the respondent to admit the petitioner, the petition did not prosper. In support of its decision, the Court invoked academic freedom of institutions of higher learning, as recognized by the Constitution, the concept encompassing the right of a school to choose its students. Eighteen (18) years later, the right of a University to refuse admittance to its students, this time in Ateneo de Manila University proper, is again challenged. Whereas, in the Garcia case referred to in the opening paragraph, the individual concerned was not a regular student, the respondents in the case at bar, having been previously enrolled in the University, seek re-admission. Moreover, in the earlier case, the petitioner was refused admittance, not on such considerations as personality traits and character orientation, or even inability to meet the institution's academic or intellectual standards, but because of her behavior in the classroom.

The school pointedly informed her that ". . . it would seem to be in your best interest to work with a Faculty that is more compatible with your orientations." On the other hand, students who are now being refused admission into petitioner University have been found guilty of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing activities. The case attracted much publicity due to the death of one of the neophytes and serious physical injuries inflicted on another. Herein lies an opportunity for the Court to add another dimension to the concept of academic freedom of institutions of higher learning, this time a case fraught with social and emotional overtones. The facts which gave rise to this case which is far from novel, are as follows: As a requisite to membership, the Aquila Legis, a fraternity organized in the Ateneo Law School, held its initiation rites on February 8, 9 and 10, 1991, for students interested in joining its ranks. As a result of such initiation rites, Leonardo "Lennie" H. Villa, a first year student of petitioner university, died of serious physical injuries at Chinese General Hospital on February 10, 1991. He was not the lone victim, though, for another freshman by the name of 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. In a notice dated February 11, 1991, petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee 2 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. 3 Through their respective counsels, they requested copies of the charges and pertinent documents or affidavits. In a notice dated February 14, 1991, 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." 4 Respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the formal charge on or before February 18, 1991; otherwise, they would be deemed to have waived their right to present their defenses. On February 20, 1991, petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board composed of petitioners Judge Ruperto Kapunan, Justice Venicio Escolin, Atty. Marcos Herras, Fiscal Miguel Albar and Atty. Ferdinand Casis, to hear the charges against respondent students. In a letter dated February 20, 1991, respondent students were informed that they had violated Rule No. 3 of the Rules on Discipline contained in the Law School Catalogue. Said letter also states: "The complaint/charge against you arose from initiations held on February 8-10, 1991. The evidence against you consist of testimonies of students, showing your participation in acts prohibited by the School regulations." Finally, it ordered respondent students to file their written answers to the above charge on or before February 22 1991, otherwise they would be deemed to have waived their defenses. 5

In a motion dated February 21, 1991, respondent students, through counsel, requested that the investigation against them be held in abeyance, pending action on their request for copies of the evidence against them. 6 Respondent students were then directed by the Board to appear before it at a hearing on February 28, 1991 to clarify their answer with regard to the charges filed by the investigating committee for violation of Rule No. 3. However, in a letter to a petitioners dated February 27, 1991, counsel for respondent students moved to postpone the hearing from February 28, 1991 to March 1, 1991. 7 Subsequently, respondent students were directed to appear on March 2, 1991 for clarificatory questions. 8 They were also informed that:
a) The proceedings will be summary in nature in accordance with the rules laid down in the case of Guzman vs. National University; 9

b) Petitioners have no right to cross-examine the affiants-neophytes; c) Hazing which is not defined in the School catalogue shall be defined in accordance with the proposed bill of Sen. Jose Lina, Senate Bill No. 3815; d) The Board will take into consideration the degree of participation of the petitioners in the alleged hazing incident in imposing the penalty; e) The Decision of the Board shall be appealable to the President of the University, i. e., Respondent Joaquin Bernas S. J. On March 5, 1991, petitioner Bernas wrote Dean Castillo that, "in cases where the Disciplinary Board is not prepared to impose the penalty of dismissal, I would prefer that the Board leave the decision on the penalty to the Administration so that this case be decided not just on the Law School level but also on the University level." 10 In a resolution dated March 9, 1991, 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. The Board found that respondent students acted as master auxiliaries or "auxies" during the initiation rites of Aquila Legis, and exercised the "auxies privilege," which allows them to participate in the physical hazing. Although respondent students claim that they were there to assist and attend to the needs of the neophytes, actually they were assigned a definite supportive role to play in the organized activity. Their guilt was heightened by the fact that they made no effort to prevent the infliction of further physical punishment on the neophytes under their care. The Board considered respondent students part and parcel of the integral process of hazing. In conclusion, the Board pronounced respondents guilty of hazing, either by active participation or through acquiescence. 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. 11 Petitioner Dean del Castillo waived her prerogative to review the decision of the Board and left to the President of the University the decision of whether to expel respondents or not. Consequently, in a resolution dated March 10, 1991, petitioner Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, as President of the Ateneo de Manila University, accepted the factual findings of the Board, thus: "that as Master Auxiliaries they exercised the 'auxie's privilege;' that even assuming they did not lay hands on the neophytes," respondents students are still guilty in accordance with the principle that "where two or more persons act together in the commission of a crime, whether they act through the physical volition of one or of all, proceeding severally or collectively, each individual whose will contributes to

the wrongdoing is responsible for the whole." Fr. Bernas, in describing the offense which led to the death of Leonardo Villa, concluded that the "offense of the respondents can be characterized as grave and serious, subversive of the goals of Christian education and contrary to civilized behavior." Accordingly, he imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students. 12 In a resolution dated March 18, 1991 and concurred in by petitioner Fr. Bernas, 13 the Board excluded respondent students Abas and Mendoza from the coverage of the resolution of March 10, 1991, inasmuch as at the time the latter resolution was promulgated, neither had as yet submitted their case to the Board. Said resolution also set the investigation of the two students on March 21, 1991. On March 18, 1991, respondent students filed with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction 14 alleging that they were currently enrolled as students for the second semester of school year 1990-91. Unless a temporary restraining order is issued, they would be prevented from taking their examinations. The petition principally centered on the alleged lack of due process in their dismissal. On the same day, Judge Madayag issued a temporary restraining order the enjoining petitioners from dismissing respondent students and stopping the former from conducting hearings relative to the hazing incident. 15 Hearings in connection with the issuance of the temporary restraining order were then held. On April 7, 1991, the temporary restraining order were issued on March 18, 1991 lapsed. Consequently, a day after the expiration of the temporary restraining order, Dean del Castillo created a Special Board composed of Atty.(s) Jose Claro Tesoro, Ramon Caguioa, and Ramon Ereeta to investigate the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza. Respondent students reacted immediately by filing a Supplemental Petition of certiorari, prohibition andmandamus with prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, to include the aforesaid members of the Special Board, as additional respondents to the original petition. 16 Petitioners moved to strike out the Supplement Petition arguing that the creation of the Special Board was totally unrelated to the original petition which alleged lack of due process in the conduct of investigations by the Disciplinary Board against respondent students; that a supplemental petition cannot be admitted without the same being set for hearing and that the supplemental petition for the issuance of a temporary restraining order will, in effect, extend the previous restraining order beyond its mandatory 20-day lifetime. 17 Acting on the urgent motion to admit the supplemental petition with prayer for a temporary restraining order, Judge Amin, as pairing judge of respondents Judge Capulong, granted respondent students' prayer on April 10, 1991. 18 On May 17, 1991, respondent Judge ordered petitioners to reinstate respondent students. Simultaneously, the court ordered petitioners to conduct special examinations in lieu of the final examinations which allegedly the students were not allowed to take, and enjoined them to maintain the status quo with regard to the cases of Adel Abas and Zosimo Mendoza pending final determination of the issue of the instant case. Lastly, it directed respondent students to file a bond in the amount of P50,000.00. 19 On the same date, May 17, 1991, the Special Board investigating petitioners Abas and Mendoza and directed the dropping of their names from its roll of students. 20

The following day or on May 21, 1991, respondent judge issued the writ of preliminary injunction upon posting by respondents of a bond dated May 17, 1991 in the amount of P50,000.00. Hence, this special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the enforcement of the May 17, 1991 order of respondent judge. 21 In the case at bar, we come to grips with two relevant issues on academic freedom, namely: (1) whether a school is within its rights in expelling students from its academic community pursuant to its disciplinary rules and moral standards; and (2) whether or not the penalty imposed by the school administration is proper under the circumstances. We grant the petition and reverse the order of respondent judge ordering readmission of respondent students. Respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion when he ruled that respondent students had been denied due process in the investigation of the charges against them. It is the threshold argument of respondent students that the decision of petitioner Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S. J., then President of the Ateneo de Manila University, to expel them was arrived at without affording them their right to procedural due process. We are constrained to disagree as we find no indication that such right has been violated. On the contrary, respondent students' rights in a school disciplinary proceeding, as enunciated in the cases of Guzman v. National University, 22 Alcuaz v. PSBA, Q.C. Branch 23 and Non v. Dames II 24 have been meticulously respected by petitioners in the various investigative proceedings held before they were expelled. Corollary to their contention of denials of due process is their argument that it is Ang Tibay case 25 and not theGuzman case which is applicable in the case at bar. Though both cases essentially deal with the requirements of due process, the Guzman case is more apropos to the instant case, since the latter deals specifically with the 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. 26

It cannot seriously be asserted that the above requirements were not met. When, in view of the death of Leonardo Villa, petitioner Cynthia del Castillo, as Dean of the Ateneo Law School, notified and required respondent students on February 11, 1991 to submit within twenty-four hours their written statement on the incident, 27 the records show that instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested through their counsel, copies of the charges. 28While of the students mentioned in the February 11, 1991 notice duly submitted written statements, the others failed to do so. Thus, the latter were granted an extension of up to February 18, 1991 to file their statements. 29 Indubitably, the nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled out in petitioners' notices dated February 14 and 20, 1991. 30 It is to be noted that the February 20, 1991 letter which quoted Rule No. 3 of its Rules of Discipline as contained in the Ateneo Law School Catalogue was addressed individually to respondent students. Petitioners' notices/letters dated February 11, February 14 and 20 clearly show that respondent students were given ample opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf and to answer the charges leveled against them.

The requisite assistance of counsel was met when, from the very start of the investigations before the Joint Administration Faculty-Student Committee, the law firm of Gonzales Batiler and Bilog and Associates put in its appearance and filed pleadings in behalf of respondent students. Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written statements which became the basis of petitioners' February 14, 1991 order, they were denied procedural due process. 31 Granting that they were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said to detract from the observance of due process, for disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students' participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. A closer examination of the March 2, 1991 hearing which characterized the rules on the investigation as being summary in nature and that respondent students have no right to examine affiants-neophytes, reveals that this is but a reiteration of our previous ruling inAlcuaz. 32 Respondent students' contention that the investigating committee failed to consider their evidence is far from the truth because the February 14, 1992 ordered clearly states that it was reached only after receiving the written statements and hearing the testimonies of several witnesses. 33 Similarly, the Disciplinary Board's resolution dated March 10, 1991 was preceded by a hearing on March 2, 1991 wherein respondent students were summoned to answer clarificatory questions. With regard to the charge of hazing, respondent students fault petitioners for not explicitly defining the word "hazing" and allege that there is no proof that they were furnished copies of the 1990-91 Ateneo Law School Catalogue which prohibits hazing. Such flawed sophistry is not worthy of students who aspire to be future members of the Bar. It cannot be overemphasized that the charge filed before the Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee and the Disciplinary Board is not a criminal case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt but is merely administrative in character. As such, it is not subject to the rigorous requirements of criminal due process, particularly with respect to the specification of the charge involved. As we have had occasion to declare in previous cases a similar nature, due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings identical to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. 34Accordingly, disciplinary charges against a student need not be drawn with the precision of a criminal information or complaint. Having given prior notice to the students involved that "hazing" which is not defined in the School Catalogue shall be defined in accordance with Senate Bill No. 3815, the proposed bill on the subject of Sen. Jose Lina, petitioners have said what needs to be said. We deem this sufficient for purposes of the investigation under scrutiny. Hazing, as a ground for disciplining a students, to the extent of dismissal or expulsion, finds its raison d' etre in the increasing frequency of injury, even death, inflicted upon the neophytes by their insensate "masters." Assuredly, it passes the test of reasonableness and absence of malice on the part of the school authorities. Far from fostering comradeship and esprit d' corps, it has merely fed upon the cruel and baser instincts of those who aspire to eventual leadership in our country. 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. 35 It is accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is when the case involves a question of law, 36 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.

Lastly, respondent students argue that we erred in issuing a Temporary Restraining Order since petitioners do not stand to suffer irreperable damage in the event that private respondents are allowed to re-enroll. No one can be so myopic as to doubt that the immediate reinstatement of respondent students who have been investigated and found by the Disciplinary Board to have violated petitioner university's disciplinary rules and standards will certainly undermine the authority of the administration of the school. This we would be most loathe to do. More importantly, it will seriously impair petitioner university's academic freedom which has been enshrined in the 1935, 1973 and the present 1987 Constitutions. At this juncture, it would be meet to recall the essential freedoms subsumed by Justice Felix Frankfurter in the term "academic freedom" cited in the case of Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 37 thus: (1) who may teach: (2) what may be taught; (3) how it shall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study. Socrates, the "first of the great moralists of Greece," proud to claim the title "gadfly of the State" has deservedly earned for himself a respected place in the annals of history as a martyr to the cause of free intellectual inquiry. To Plato, this great teacher of his was the "best, the most sensible, and the most sensible, and the most just man of his age." In 399 B.C., he willingly quaffed the goblet of hemlock as punishment for alleged "corruption" of the youth of Athens. He describes in his own words how this charge of "corruption," the forerunner of the concept of academic freedom, came about:
Young men of the richer classes, who have not much to do, come about me of their own accord: they like to heart the pretenders examined, and they often imitate me, and examine others themselves; there are plenty of person, as they soon discover, who think that they know something, but really know little or nothing; and then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me. This confounded Socrates, they say; this villainous misleader of youth. And then if somebody asks them, Why, what evil does he practice or teach? they do not know, and cannot tell; but in order that they may not appear to be at a loss, they repeat the ready-made charges which are used against all philosophers about teaching things up in the clouds and under the earth, and having no gods, and making the worse appear the better cause; for they do not like to confess that their pretense of knowledge has been detected which is the truth; and as they are numerous and ambitious and energetic, and are all in battle array and have persuasive tongues, they have filled your ears with their loud and inveterate calumnies. 38

Since Socrates, numberless individuals of the same heroic mold have similarly defied the stifling strictures of authority, whether State, Church, or various interest groups, to be able to give free rein to their ideas. Particularly odious were the insidious and blatant attempts at thought control during the time of the Inquisition until even the Medieval universities, renowned as intellectual centers in Europe, gradually lost their autonomy. In time, such noble strivings, gathering libertarian encrustations along the way, were gradually crystallized in the cluster of freedoms which awaited the champions and martyrs of the dawning modern age. This was exemplified by the professors of the new German universities in the 16th and 17th centuries such as the Universities of Leiden (1554), Helmstatdt (1574) and Heidelberg (1652). The movement back to freedom of inquiry gained adherents among the exponents of fundamental human rights of the 19th and 20th centuries. "Academic freedom", the term as it evolved to describe the emerging rights related to intellectual liberty, has traditionally been associated with freedom of thought, speech, expression and the press; in other words, with the right of individuals in university communities, such as professors, researchers and administrators, to investigate, pursue, discuss

and, in the immortal words of Socrates, "to follow the argument wherever it may lead," free from internal and external interference or pressure. But obviously, its optimum impact is best realized where the freedom is exercised judiciously and does not degenerate into unbridled license. Early cases on this individual aspect of academic freedom have been stressed the need for assuring to such individuals a measure of independence through the guarantees of autonomy and security of tenure. The components of this aspect of academic freedom have been categorized under the areas of: (1) who may teach and (2) how to teach. It is to be realized that this individual aspects of academic freedom could have developed only pari passu with its institutional counterpart. As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are inherently endowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise, unhampered by external controls or pressure. In the Frankfurter formulation, this is articulated in the areas of: (1) what shall be taught, e.g., the curriculum and (2) who may be admitted to study. In the Philippines, the Acts which are passed with the change of sovereignty from the Spanish to the American government, namely, the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916 made no mention of the rights now subsumed under the catch-all term of "academic freedom." This is most especially true with respect to the institutional aspect of the term. It had to await the drafting of the Philippine Constitutions to be recognized as deserving of legal protection. The breakthrough for the concept itself was found in Section 5 of the 1935 Constitution which stated: "Universities established by the State shall enjoy academic freedom." The only State University at that time, being the University of the Philippines, the Charter was perceived by some as exhibiting rank favoritism for the said institution at the expense of the rest. In attempt to broaden the coverage of the provision, the 1973 Constitution provided in its Section 8(2): "All institutions of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom." In his interpretation of the provision, former U.P. President Vicente G. Sinco, who was also a delegate to the 1971 Constitutional Convention, declared that it "definitely grants the right of academic freedom to the University as an institution as distinguished from the academic freedom of a university professor." 39 Has the right been carried over the to the present Constitution? In an attempt to give an explicit definition with an expanded coverage, the Commissioners of the Constitutional Commission of the 1986 came up with this formulation: "Academic freedom shall be enjoyed by students, by teachers, and by researchers." After protracted debate and ringing speeches, the final version which was none too different from the way it was couched in the previous two (2) Constitutions, as found in Article XIV, Section 5(2) states: "Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." In anticipation of the question as to whether and what aspects of academic freedom are included herein, ConCom Commissioner Adolfo S. Azcuna explained: "Since academic freedom is a dynamic concept, we want to expand the frontiers of freedom, especially in education, therefore, we shall leave it to the courts to develop further the parameters of academic freedom." 40 More to the point, Commissioner Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon asked: "When we speak of the sentence 'academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning,' do we mean that academic freedom shall be enjoyed by the institution itself?" Azcuna replied: "Not only that, it also includes . . . . " Gascon finished off the broken thought, "the faculty and the students." Azcuna replied: "Yes." Since Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, 41 we have consistently upheld the salutary proposition that admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the same being a

privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. While under the education Act of 1982, students have a right "to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation," such right is subject, as all rights are, to the established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic institution. 42 "For private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students. This . . . extends as well to parents . . . as parents are under a social and moral (if not legal) obligation, individually and collectively, to assist and cooperate with the schools." 43 Such rules are "incident to the very object of incorporation and indispensable to the successful management of the college. The rules may include those governing student discipline." 44 Going a step further, the establishment of rules governing university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival. Within memory of the current generation is the eruption of militancy in the academic groves as collectively, the students demanded and plucked for themselves from the ponoply of academic freedom their own rights encapsulized under the rubric of "right to education" forgetting that, in Holfeldian terms, they have a concomitant duty, and that is, their duty to learn under the rules laid down by the school. Considering that respondent students are proud to claim as their own a Christian school that includes Theology as part of its curriculum and assidously strives to turn out individuals of unimpeachable morals and integrity in the mold of the founder of the order of the Society of Jesus, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and their God-fearing forbears, their barbaric and ruthless acts are the more reprehensible. It must be borne in mind that universities are established, not merely to develop the intellect and skills of the studentry, but to inculcate lofty values, ideals and attitudes; nay, the development, or flowering if you will, of the total man. In essence, education must ultimately be religious not in the sense that the founders or charter members of the institution are sectarian or profess a religious ideology. Rather, a religious education, as the renowned philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said, is "an education which inculcates duty and reverence." 45 It appears that the particular brand of religious education offered by the Ateneo de Manila has been lost on the respondent students. Certainly, they do not deserve to claim such a venerable institution as the Ateneo de Manila University as their own a minute longer, for they may foreseeably cast a malevolent influence on the students currently enrolled, as well as those who come after them. Quite applicable to this case is our pronouncement in Yap Chin Fah v. Court of Appeals that: "The maintenance of a morally conducive and orderly educational environment will be seriously imperiled if, under the circumstances of this case, Grace Christian is forced to admit petitioner's children and to reintegrate them to the student body." 46Thus, the decision of petitioner university to expel them is but congruent with the gravity of their misdeeds. That there must be such a congruence between the offense committed and the sanction imposed was stressed inMalabanan v. Ramento. 47 Having carefully reviewed the records and the procedure followed by petitioner university, we see no reason to reverse its decision founded on the following undisputed facts: that on February 8, 9 and 10, 1991, the Aquila Legis Fraternity conducted hazing activities; that respondent students were present at the hazing as auxiliaries, and that as a result of the hazing, Leonardo Villa died from serious physical injuries, while Bienvenido Marquez was hospitalized. In light of the vicious acts of

respondent students upon those whom ironically they would claim as "brothers" after the initiation rites, how can we countenance the imposition of such nominal penalties as reprimand or even suspension? We, therefore, affirm petitioners' imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon respondent students. This finds authority and justification in Section 146 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools. 48 WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED; the order of respondent Judge dated May 17, 1991 reinstating respondents students into petitioner university is hereby REVERSED. The resolution of petitioner Joaquin Bernas S. J., then President of Ateneo de Manila University dated March 1991, is REINSTATED and the decision of the Special Board DISMISSING respondent students ADEL ABAS and ZOSIMO MENDOZA dated May 20, 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED. Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Quiason, JJ., concur. Grio-Aquino, J., is on leave.

Separate Opinions

CRUZ, J., concurring: I concur in the result. I do not join in the statement in the ponencia which seem to me to be a prejudgment of the criminal cases against the private respondents for the death of Lenny Villa.

Separate Opinions

CRUZ, J., concurring: I concur in the result. I do not join in the statement in the ponencia which seem to me to be a prejudgment of the criminal cases against the private respondents for the death of Lenny Villa.
#

Footnotes 1 Garcia v. The Faculty Admission's Committee, Loyola School of Theology, No. L-40779, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 227-298. 2 Composed of Faculty Members: Atty(s) Jacinto Jimenez, Sedfrey Candelaria, Carlos Medina, Alternate: Dean Antonio Abad. Students: Mr.(s)Arthur Yap, Reynaldo Dizon, Ms Patricia Ty. Administration: Dean Cynthia del Castillo (Chairperson).

3 Annex B, Rollo, p. 41. 4 DISCIPLINE Dedication to study, respect for authority, strict observance of the rules and regulations of the University and the school and unfailing courtesy are expected at all times of all Ateneo Students. The Administration reserves to itself the right to suspend, dismiss from the School at any time, strike from the list of candidates for graduation and/or withhold the Ateneo diploma from or expel any student whom it may deem unworthy. Any of the following acts shall constitute a ground for suspension, dismissal striking from the list of candidates for graduation and/or withholding of the Ateneo diploma, or expulsion, depending on the severity of the offense: xxx xxx xxx 3 Hazing; carrying deadly weapons; drunkeness, vandalism; "assaulting a professor or any other school authority, including members of the staff or employees of the School;" Petition, p. 8, emphasis supplied. 5 Annex D, Rollo, p. 45. 6 Annex E, Rollo, p. 46. 7 Annex F, Rollo, p. 48 8 Annex G, Rollo, p. 49. 9 L-68288, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 699. 10 Annex Q, Rollo, p. 88. 11 Annex H, Rollo, p. 175. 12 The dismissed students are: Ernest Montecillo, E Amado Sabban, Joseph Lledo, Santiago Ranada III, Judge Fernandez, Dalmacio Lim, Adel Abas, Ronan de Guzman, Zosimo Mendoza and Manuel Escalona. Annex I, Rollo, p. 52. 13 Annex J, Rollo, p. 54. 14 Annex K, Rollo, p. 55. 15 Annex L, Rollo, pp. 67. 16 Annex M, Rollo, pp. 68-73. 17 Annex N, Rollo, pp. 76-81. 18 Annex A, Rollo, p. 40.

19 Annex M, Rollo, p. 189. 20 Annex M, Rollo, p. 189. 21 Of the respondent students dismissed in the March 10, 1991 Resolution, Santiago Ranada III and Ronan de Guzman are not named private respondents herein. 22 L-68288, July 11, 1986 142 SCRA 699. 23 L-76353, May 2, 1988, 161 SCRA 7. 24 G.R. No. 89317, May 20, 1990, 185 SCRA 523. 25 69 Phil. (1940). 26 Supra, at 22. 27 Annex B, Rollo p. 41. 28 Order dated May 17, 1991, Annex A, p. 35. 29 Annex C, Rollo, p. 43. 30 See Annex B, Rollo, p. 41 and Annex D, Rollo, p. 44. 31 Rollo, p. 115. 32 Supra at 20. 33 Annex C, Rollo, p. 43. 34 Alcuaz v. PSBA, QC Branch, supra at 20. 35 Rollo, pp. 99-100. 36 PALEA v. PAL, Inc., No. L-31396, January 30, 982, 111 SCRA. 215 and Central Bank v. Cloribel, 44 SCRA 307, No. L-26971, April 11, 1972. 37 354 U.S. 234 (1957). 38 Riley, Woodbridge, STORY OF ETHICS, Men and Morals, Vol. II, p. 62, Doubleday, Doran and Co., Inc., 1933. 39 Sinco, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW, p. 489 (1962). 40 A ConCom Record, p. 439. 41 No. L-40779, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 277. See also the cases of Tangonan v. Pano, G.R. No. L-45157, June 27, 1985, 137 SCRA 245 and Magtibay v. Garcia, No. L-28971, January 28, 1983,120 SCRA 370.

42 Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, effective September 11, 1982. 43 Yap Chin Fah v. Court of Appeals [Resolution], G.R. No. 90063, December 12, 1989. 44 Supra, at 22. 45 In his article "The Aims of Education," Alfred North Whitened explained "A religious education is an education which includes duty and reverence. Duty arises from our potential control over the course of events. Where attainable knowledge could have changed the issue, ignorance has the guilt of vice. And the foundation of reverence is this perception, that the present holds within itself the complete sum of existence, backwards and forwards, that whole amplitude of time, which is eternity." Fuess, Claude M. and Basford, Emory S., Editors, UNSEEN HARVESTS, A Treasury of Teaching, p. 92, The Macmillan Company, 1947. 46 Supra, at 43. 47 G.R. No. 62270, May 21, 1984, 129 SCRA 359. 48 Ateneo de Manila v. Court of Appeals, No. L-56180, October 16, 1986, 145 SCRA 100.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC

G.R. No. 110280 October 12, 1993 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS and DR. OLIVIA C. CAOILI in her capacity as Secretary of the Board, petitioners, vs. HON. ELSIE LIGOT-TELAN in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 87, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and RAMON P. NADAL, respondents. U.P. Office of Legal Services for petitioners. Bonifacio A. Alentajon for private respondent.

ROMERO, J.: In an effort to make the University of the Philippines (U.P.) truly the university of the people, the U.P. administration conceptualized and implemented the socialized scheme of tuition fee payments through the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program (STFAP), popularly known as the "Iskolar ng Bayan" program. Spawned by the public clamor to overcome what was perceived as the sharpening elitist profile of the U.P studentry, the STFAP aspired to expand the coverage of government educational subsidies so as to include the deserving in the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. After broad consultations with the various university constituencies by U.P. President Jose V. Abueva, the U.P. Board of Regents issued on April 28, 1988 a Resolution establishing the STFAP. A year later, it was granted official recognition when the Congress of the Philippines allocated a portion of the National Budget for the implementation of the program. In the interest of democratizing admission to the State University, all students are entitled to apply for STFAP benefits which include reduction in fees, living and book subsidies and student assistantships which give undergraduate students the opportunity to earn P12.00 per hour by working for the University. Applicants are required to accomplish a questionnaire where, among others, they state the amount and source of the annual income of the family, their real and personal properties and special circumstances from which the University may evaluate their financial status and need on the basis of which they are categorized into brackets. At the end the application form, the student applicant, as well as his parent, signs a sworn statement, as follows: Statement of the Student

I hereby certify, upon my honor, that all the data and information which I have furnished are accurate and complete. I understand that any willful misinformation and/or withholding of information will automatically disqualify me from receiving any financial assistance or subsidy, and may serve as ground for my expulsion from the University. Furthermore, is such misinformation and/or withholding of information on my part is discovered after I have been awarded tuition scholarship or any form of financial assistance, I will be required to reimburse all financial benefits plus the legal rate of interest prevailing at the time of the reimbursement without prejudice to the filing of charges against me. (Emphasis supplied for emphasis)

Moreover, I understand that the University may send a fact-finding team to visit my home/residence to verify the veracity of the information provided in this application and I will give my utmost cooperation in this regard. I also understand that my refusal to cooperate with the fact-finding team may mean suspension of withdrawal of STFAP benefits and privileges. Student's Signature Statement of the Applicant's Parent or Guardian I hereby certify to the truthfulness and completeness of the information which my son/daughter/dependent has furnished in this application together with all the documents attached. I further recognize that in signing this application form, I share with my son/daughter/dependent the responsibility for the truthfulness and completeness of the information supplied herein. (Emphasis supplied for emphasis) Moreover, I understand that the University may send a fact-finding team to visit my home/residence to verify the information provided in this application and I will give my utmost cooperation in this regard. I also understand that my refusal to cooperate with the fact-finding team may mean suspension or withdrawal of STFAP benefits and privileges of my son/daughter/dependent.
Parent's/Legal Guardian's/Spouse's Signature 1

From the early stages of its implementation, measures were adopted to safeguard the integrity of the program. One such precautionary measure was the inclusion as one of the punishable acts under Section 2 (a) of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline of the University the deliberate falsification or suppression/withholding of any material information required in the application form. To further insure the integrity of the program, a random sampling scheme of verification of data indicated in a student's application form is undertaken. Among those who applied for STFAP benefits for School Year 1989-90 was Ramon P. Nadal, a student enrolled in the College of Law. On March 14, 1991, a team composed of Arsenio L. Dona and Jose Carlo Manalo conducted a home investigation at the residence of Nadal at 31 Twinpeaks Drive, Blue Ridge, Quezon City. Ms. Cristeta Packing, Nadal's aunt, was interviewed and the team submitted a home visit report. Consolacion Urbino, Scholarship Affairs Officer II, found discrepancies between the report and

Nadal's application form. Forthwith, she and Bella M. Villanueva, head of the Office of Scholarships and Student Services, presented the matter to the Diliman Committee on Scholarships and Financial Assistance. 2 In compliance with the said Committee's directive, Bella Villanueva wrote Nadal informing him that the investigation showed that he had failed to declare, not only the fact that he had been maintaining a 1977 Corolla car which was owned by his brother but also the income of his mother who was supporting his brothers Antonio and Federico. Nadal was likewise informed that the Diliman Committee had reclassified him to Bracket 9 (from Bracket 4), retroactive to June 1989, unless he could submit "proofs to the contrary." Nadal was required "to pay back the equivalent amount of full school fees" with "interest based on current commercial rates." Failure to settle his account would mean the suspension of his registration privileges and the withholding of clearance and transcript of records. He was also warned that his case might be referred to the Student Disciplinary Tribunal for further investigation. 3 On July 12, 1991, Nadal issued a certification stating, among other things, that his mother migrated to the United States in 1981 but because her residency status had not yet been legalized, she had not been able to find a "stable, regular, well-paying employment." He also stated that his mother, jointly with his brother Virgilio, was shouldering the expenses of the college education of his two younger brothers. 4 Noting further discrepancies between Nadal's application form and the certification, the U.P. charged Nadal before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) on August 23, 1991 with the following: That respondent RAMON P. NADAL (UP Student No. 83-11640), a student of the College of Law, UP System, Diliman, Quezon City, and STFAP (ISKOLAR NG BAYAN) recipient (Bracket 4 for SY 1989-1990; Bracket 5 for SY 1990-1991) in his applications for STFAP (ISKOLAR NG BAYAN) benefits which he filed for schoolyear 1989-1990, and schoolyear 1990-1991, with the Office of Scholarship and Student Services (formerly Scholarship and Financial Assistance Service) voluntarily and willfully withheld and did not declare the following: (a) That he has and maintains a car (Toyota Corolla, Model 1977); and (b) The income of his mother (Natividad Packing Nadal) in the U.S.A., in support of the studies of his brothers Antonio and Federico,
which acts of willfully withholding information is tantamount to acts of dishonesty in relation to his studies, in violation of paragraph (a), Section 2, of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline, as amended. (Approved by the B.O.R. at its 876th meeting on 02 September 1976, amended at the 923rd B.O.R. meeting on 31 January 1980, and further amended at its 1017th B.O.R. meeting on 08 December 1988). 5

On October 27, 1992, after hearing, the SDT 6 rendered a decision in SDT Case No. 91-026 exculpating Nadal of the charge of deliberately withholding in his STFAP application form information that he was maintaining a Toyota Corolla car, but finding him guilty of "wilfully and deliberately withholding information about the income of his mother, who is living abroad, in support of the studies of his brothers Antonio and Federico, 7 which is tantamount to acts of dishonesty in relation to his studies in violation of paragraph [a], Section 2 of the Rules [now covered by paragraph (i), Section 2 of the Rules, as amended 25 June 1992]." As such, the SDT imposed upon Nadal the

penalty of expulsion from the University and required him to reimburse all STFAP benefits he had received but if he does not voluntarily make reimbursement, it shall be "effected by the University thru outside legal action." 8 The SDT decision was thereafter automatically elevated to the Executive Committee of U.P. Diliman for review pursuant to Sec. 20 of the U.P. Rules on Student Conduct and Discipline. On November 26, 1992, the Executive Committee, voting 13:4, affirmed the decision of the SDT; whereupon, Nadal appealed to the Board of Regents (BOR). The appeal was included in the agenda of the BOR meeting on January 25, 1993. 9 On January 18, 1993, upon her assumption to the Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Education, thereby making her automatically a member of the BOR, Senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani wrote the BOR a letter expressing her view that, after a close review of Nadal s case by her legal staff, "it is only fair and just to find Mr. Nadal's appeal meritorious and his arguments worthy of belief. Consequently, he should be allowed to graduate and take the bar examinations this year." 10 At its January 25, 1993 meeting, the BOR affirmed the decision of the SDT but because "the Board was willing to grant a degree of compassion to the appellant in view of the alleged status and predicament of the mother as an immigrant 'TNT' in the United States," the penalty was modified "from Expulsion to One Year- Suspension, effective immediately, plus reimbursement of all benefits received from the STFAP, with legal interest." The BOR also decided against giving Nadal, a certification of good moral character. 11 Nadal forthwith filed a motion for reconsideration of the BOR decision, allegedly against the advice of his counsel.12 The motion was placed on the agenda of the February 25, 1993 meeting of the BOR. A day before said date, Senator Shahani wrote the BOR another letter requesting that deliberation on Nadal's case be deferred until such time as she could attend a BOR meeting. On March 15, 1993, the U.P. filed an opposition to Nadal's motion for reconsideration. Thereafter, the BOR held a special meeting to accommodate the request of Regent Shahani with Nadal's case as the sole item on its agenda. Again, Nadal's motion for reconsideration was included in the March 23, 1993 agenda but in view of the absence of Senator Shahani, the decision thereon was deferred. At the special meeting of the BOR on March 28, 1993 at the Board Room of the Manila Polo Club in Forbes Park, Makati, Regent Antonio T. Carpio raised the "material importance" of verifying the truth of Nadal's claim that earlier, he was a beneficiary of a scholarship and financial aid from the Ateneo de Manila University (AdeMU). Learning that the "certification issued by the AdeMU that it had not given Nadal financial aid while he was a student there was made through a telephone call," Regent Carpio declared that there was as yet "no direct evidence in the records to substantiate the charge." According to Carpio, if it should be disclosed that Nadal Falsely stated that he received such financial aid, it would be a clear case of gross and material misrepresentation that would even warrant the penalty of expulsion. Hence, he cast a conditional vote that would depend on the verification of Nadal's claim on the matter. U.P. President and concurrently Regent Jose V. Abueva countered by stating that "a decision should not be anchored solely on one piece of information which he considered irrelevant, and which would ignore the whole pattern of the respondent's dishonesty and deception from 1989 which had been established in the investigation and the reviews." He added that "the respondent's eligibility for his AdeMU high school scholarship and financial assistance from 1979 to 1983 does not in any way establish that he is 'not guilty as charged' before the SDT," since the formal charges against him do not include withholding of information regarding scholarship grants received from other schools.

At the said March 28, 1993 special meeting, the Board decided to go into executive session where the following transpired: The Chairman of the Board, together with the President, directed the Secretary to reflect in the minutes of the meeting the following decisions of the Board in executive session, with only the Board members present. A vote was held by secret ballot on whether Ramon P. Nadal was guilty or not guilty as charged of willful withholding of information in relation to his application for Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP) benefits which he filed for Schoolyears 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 which is tantamount to act of dishonesty in relation to his studies, in violation of paragraph (a), Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline, as amended. The Chairman gave the following results of the Board action during the Executive Session: four (4) voted guilty; three (3) voted not guilty; and three (3) gave conditional votes, pending verification with Father Raymond Holscher of Ateneo de Manila University of Ramon P. Nadal's statement in his STFAP application that he was granted scholarship while he was in high school. Should Ateneo confirm that Nadal had not received financial assistance, then the conditional votes would be considered as guilty, and if otherwise, then not guilty. The Chairman requested the President to make the verification as soon as possible the next day. In answer to a query, the Chairman clarified that once the information was received from Ateneo, there would be no need for another meeting to validate the decision. The President reiterated his objections to the casting of conditional votes.
The Chairman himself did not vote. 13

In the morning of March 29, 1993, the AdeMU issued a certification to the effect that Nadal was indeed a recipient of a scholarship grant from 1979 to 1983. That evening, the BOR met again at a special meeting at the Westin Philippine Plaza Hotel. According to Regent Carpio, in executive session, the BOR found Nadal "guilty" as the members voted as follows: six members guilty, three members not guilty, and three members abstained. 14Consequently, the BOR imposed on Nadal the penalties of suspension for one (1) year effective March 29, 1993, non-issuance of any certificate of good moral character during the suspension and/or as long as Nadal has not reimbursed the STFAP benefits he had received with 12% interest per annum from march 30, 1993 and nonissuance of his transcript of records until he has settled his financial obligations with the university. 15 On March 30, 1993, Nadal wrote President Abueva a handwritten letter stating that "after learning of the latest decision" of the BOR, he had been "intensely concentrating on (his) job so that (he) can earn enough to pay for (his) financial obligations to the University." Alleging that he was "now letting nature take its course," Nadal begged President Abueva not to issue any press release regarding the case. 16 However, on April 22, 1993, Nadal filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and prayer for a temporary restraining order against President Abueva, the BOR, Oscar M. Alfonso, Cesar A. Buenaventura, Armand V. Fabella and Olivia C. Caoili. The petition prayed: After trial on the merits, judgment be rendered as follows:

a. Making the preliminary injunction permanent; b. Ordering respondents 'to uphold and implement their decision rendered on 28 March 1993, exonerating petitioner from all the charges against him, and accordingly dismissing SDT No. 91-026; c. Ordering respondents jointly and severally to pay petitioner litigation expenses of at least P150,000.00.
Other just and equitable reliefs are likewise prayed for.
17

The motion for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and the writ of preliminary injunction was immediately set for hearing. At the May 10, 1993 hearing, the lower court declared that the only issue to be resolved was "whether or not the respondents in Civil Case No. 93-15665 violated (Nadal's) right to due process when it rendered a decision finding Nadal guilty of the charges against him" during the March 29, 1993 meeting. After the respondents had presented their first witness, Dr. Olivia C. Caoili, the lower court asked respondents' counsel whether they were amenable to maintaining the status quo. Said counsel replied in the negative, asserting the University's prerogative to discipline students found guilty of violating its rules of discipline. 18 On the same day, the lower court 19 issued the following Order: The parties were heard on their respective positions on the incident (application for preliminary injunction and prayer for temporary restraining order and opposition thereto). For lack of material time set this for continuation on May 17 and 18, 1993 both at 2:30 p.m. In the meantime, in order that the proceedings of this case may not be rendered moot and academic, the respondents herein, namely: Jose V. Abueva, President of the University of the Philippines and Vice-Chairman of the U.P. Board of Regents, Oscar M. Alfonso, Cesar A. Buenaventura and Armand V. Fabella, members of the U.P. Board of Regents, Olivia C. Caoili, the officers, agents, representatives, and all persons acting in their behalf, are hereby temporarily restrained from implementing their decision rendered on March 29, 1993 in Administrative SDT Case No. 91-026 entitled University of the Philippines vs. Ramon P. Nadal, as reflected in the Minutes of the 1062nd meeting of the Board of Regents, U.P. held at the Romblon Room, Westin Phil. Plaza, Manila, until further order from this Court. SO ORDERED. Thereafter, Nadal presented as witnesses Regents Emerenciana Y. Arcellana, Ariel P. Tanangonan, Leticia R. Shahani and Antonio T. Carpio. The University, on the other hand, presented Dr. Olivia Caoili and Nadal himself as a hostile witness. On May 29, 1993, the lower court issued the following Order: The petitioner complains that he was not afforded due process when, after the Board Meeting on SDT Case No. 91-026 on March 28, 1993 that resulted in a decision of "NOT GUILTY" in his favor, the Chairman of the U.P. Board of Regents, without notice to the herein petitioner, called another meeting the following day to deliberate on his (the Chairman's) MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, which this time resulted in a decision of "GUILTY." While he main issue of violation of due process raised in the petition pends trial and resolution, the petitioner prays for the issuance

of a writ of preliminary injunction prohibiting the respondents from further proceeding with SDT Case No. 21-026 and from suspending the petitioner for one year. It is a basic requirement in the issuance of the preliminary injunctive writ that there must be a right to be protected. As the issue in the case at bar is due process in the March 29 Board meeting, there is, indeed, a right to be protected for, in administrative proceedings, a respondent's right to due process exists not only at the early stages but also at the final stage thereof. With the circulation to the members of the Board of Regents, as well as to other UP personnel, of the Minutes of the March 29, 1993 meeting, even after this case had already been filed, the Court is convinced that there now exists a threat to the petitioner (respondent in SDT Case No, 91-026) that the decision of the Board of Regents finally finding him guilty of willfully withholding information material to his application for Socialized Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP) benefits, will be implemented at any time, especially during the enrollment period, and this implementation would work injustice to the petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his course, and, consequently, in getting a decent and good paying job. The injury thus caused would be irreparable. "Damages are irreparable within the meaning of the rule where there is no standard by which their amount can be measured with reasonable accuracy. Where the damage is susceptible of mathematical computation, it is not irreparable." (Social Security Commission v. Bayona, et al., G.R. No. L-13555, May 30, 1962). IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, and so as not to render moot the issues in the instant proceedings, let a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining the respondents, their officers, agent(s), representatives, and all persons acting in their behalf, from further proceeding with SDT Case No. 91-026, and from suspending petitioner, upon the latter's filing a bond in the amount of P3,000.00.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

Dispensing with the filing of a motion for reconsideration, the petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of an injunction or temporary restraining order, raising the following issues: whether or not Nadal was denied due process in the administrative disciplinary proceedings against him, and, whether or not the respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing the May 29, 1993 writ of preliminary injunction thereby preventing the BOR from implementing the suspension penalty it had imposed on Nadal. Before proceeding with the discussion of the merits of the instant petition, we shall confront a threshold issue raised by private respondent, namely, that Dr. Caoili, not having been authorized by the Board of Regents as a collegial body to file the instant petition, and Dr. Abueva, who verified the petition, not being the "Board of Regents" nor "the University of the Philippines," they are not real parties in interest who should file the same. 21 A real party in interest is one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. 'Interest' within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest."22 Undoubtedly, the U.P. Board of Regents has an interest to protect inasmuch as what is in issue here is its power to impose disciplinary action against a student

who violated the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline by withholding information in connection with his application for STFAP benefits, which information, if disclosed, would have sufficed to disqualify him from receiving the financial assistance he sought. Such dishonesty, if left unpunished, would have the effect of subverting a commendable program into which the University officials had devoted much time and expended precious resources, from the conceptualization to the implementation stage, to rationalize the socialized scheme of tuition fee payments in order that more students may benefit from the public funds allocated to the State University. Having specifically named Drs. Abueva and Caoili as respondents in the petition for mandamus that he filed below, Nadal is now estopped from questioning their personality to file the instant petition. 23 Moreover, under Sec. 7 of the U.P. Charter (Act 1870) and Sec. 11 of the University Code "all process" against the BOR shall be served on "the president or secretary thereof'." It is in accordance with these legal provisions that Dr. Caoili is named as a petitioner. Necessarily, Dr. Abueva, the University President and member of the BOR, has to verify the petition. It is not mandatory, however, that each and every member of the BOR be named petitioners. As the Court has time and again held, an action may be entertained, notwithstanding the failure to include an indispensable party where it appears that the naming of the party would be but a formality. 24 No longer novel, as this is not a case of first impression, is the issue on the right of an academic institution to refuse admission to a student arising from the imposition upon him of an administrative disciplinary sanction. In our recent decision in Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, 25 wherein certain law students were dismissed for hazing resulting in the death of another, we held that the matter of admission of students is within the ambit of academic freedom and therefore, beyond the province of the courts to decide. Certain fundamental principles bear stressing. One of the arguments of Nadal in his petition for mandamus below was that he was denied due process. To clarify, the so-called lack of due process referred only to the March 29, 1993 meeting of the BOR. As stated by respondent's counsel: "What was conceded by undersigned counsel was that Nadal was afforded due process from the start of the administrative proceeding up to the meeting of the Board of Regents on March 28, 1993." 26 With respect to the March 29, 1993 meeting, respondent considers the same as "unquestionably void for lack of due process" inasmuch as he was not sent a notice of said meeting. Counsel cites the ruling in Non v. Dames II 27that imposition of sanctions on students requires "observance of procedural due process," 28 the phrase obviously referring to the sending of notice of the meeting. Attention is drawn to the disparate factual environments obtaining in Non v. Dames II and in the instant case. In the former case, the students were refused admission for having led or participated in student mass actions against the school, thereby posing a collision between constitutionally cherished rights freedom of expression and academic freedom. In the case at bar, Nadal was suspended for having breached the University's disciplinary rules. In the Non case, the Court ruled that the students were not afforded due process for even the refusal to re-enroll them appeared to have been a mere afterthought on part of the school administrators. Here, Nadal does not dispute the fact that his right to due process was held inviolate until the BOR decided to meet on March 29, 1993 with his case as the sole item on the agenda. In any event it is gross error to equate due process in the instant case with the sending of notice of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting to respondent. University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board. This is not exclusive of students whose disciplinary cases have been appealed to the Board of Regents as

the final review body. At no time did respondent complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of the regular and special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation. He would make an exception of the March 29, 1993 meeting for it was "supposed to reconsider the decision made on March 28, 1993 exonerating respondent Nadal from all administrative charges against him." 29 Regent Antonio T. Carpio, in his testimony before the lower court on May 25, 1993 admitted that there was no final verdict at the March 28, 1993 meeting in view of the conditional votes resulting from his assertion that he was "not morally convinced that there was sufficient evidence to make a finding of guilty against Nadal because there was no direct evidence that his mother received income from the United States and this income was sent to the Philippines to support the studies of the children." 30 Two regents shared the view of Regent Carpio, with the following result: four voted guilty, three, not guilty, and three cast conditional votes. The BOR agreed that, upon the suggestion of Regent Carpio, they would still verify from the AdeMU about Nadal's alleged scholarship as a student in said institution. Consequently, no definitive decision was arrived at by the BOR on March 28, 1993, Much less was a verdict of exoneration handed down as averred by respondent. Regent Carpio testified, with respect to the March 29, 1993 meeting where all twelve members of the BOR were present, that all of them participated in the voting held to reconsider the previous day's decision. He stated "I remember Regent Arcellana questioning the voting again on the ground that there was already a final decision, but there was a vote taken on whether a motion for reconsideration can be decided by the board, and a majority of the board ruled that the matter can be reconsidered again upon motion of the chairman." 31 At said meeting, six (6) regents voted to find respondent guilty, three (3) voted that he was not guilty and three (3) abstained. As succinctly announced by Regent Carpio, the final decision was that which was rendered on March 29, 1993 as "no other decision was made by the Board with respect to the same issue." 32 Counsel for Nadal charged before the lower court that his client was "not given due process in the March 29 meeting because the ground upon which he was again convicted was not the same as the original charge." 33Obviously, he was referring to the basis of the conditional votes on March 28, i.e., whether or not Nadal was telling the truth when he claimed that he received a scholarship grant from the AdeMU. However, Regent Carpio himself testified that the charge considered was "exactly the same charge" of withholding information on the income of Nadal's mother. 34 It should be stressed that the reason why Regent Carpio requested a verification of Nadal's claim that he was a scholar at the AdeMU was that Regent Carpio was not "morally convinced" yet as to the guilt of Nadal. In other words, he sought additional insights into the character of Nadal through the information that would be obtained from the AdeMU. In this regard, we find such information to be irrelevant and a mere superfluity. In his July, 12, 1991 certification aforementioned, Nadal admitted, although inconsistently, that his mother was a "TNT" who could not find a "stable, regular, well-paying employment" but that she was supporting the education of his brothers with the help of another son. To our mind, this constitutes sufficient admission that Nadal withheld information on the income, however measly and irregular, of his mother. Unlike in criminal cases which require proof beyond reasonable doubt as basis for a judgment, in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is required, that which means more than a mere scintilla or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise. 35 In light of the foregoing circumstances, we find that Nadal has been sufficiently proven to have violated his undertaking to divulge all information needed when he applied for the benefits of the STFAP.

Let it not be forgotten that respondent aspires to join the ranks of the professionals who would uphold truth at all costs so that justice may prevail. The sentinels who stand guard at the portals leading to the hallowed Temples of Justice cannot be overzealous in admitting only those who are intellectually and morally fit. In those who exhibit duplicity in their student days, one spots the shady character who is bound to sow the seeds of chicanery in the practice of his profession. Having reached his senior year, respondent is presumably aware that the bedrock axiom, Canon I, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Further on, Canon 7, Rule 7.01 provides: "A lawyer shall be answerable for knowingly making a false statement or suppressing a material fact in connection with his application for admission to the bar." (Emphasis supplied for emphasis) Surely, it is not too early to warn entrants to the noble profession of law that honesty and integrity are requirements no less weighty than hurdling the Bar examinations. This is the reason why a certification of good moral character is one of the documents that must be submitted in applying to take said examination. In fact, a charge of immoral or deceitful conduct on the part of an applicant, when proved, is a ground for disqualifying him. To revert to the instant case, inasmuch as it has been shown sufficiently that respondent has committed an act of dishonesty in withholding vital information in connection with his application for STFAP benefits, all in blatant violation of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline of petitioner University, the latter's inherent power and authority to impose disciplinary sanction may be invoked and rightfully exercised. As a Bohemian proverb puts it: "A school without discipline is like a mill without water." Insofar as the water turns the mill, so does the school's disciplinary power assure its right to survive and continue operating. In more relevant terms, through its power to impose disciplinary sanctions, an educational institution is able to exercise its academic freedom which is, in the case at bar, the right to suspend and refuse admission to a student who has subverted its authority in the implementation of the critically important STFAP. At the risk of being repetitious, the matter of admission to a University is encompassed by the right of academic freedom. In Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology 36 the Court stated that a school or college which is possessed of the right of academic freedom "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." Elucidating, in Ateneo de Manila University v. Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, 37 the Court further expounded: Since Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, we have consistently upheld the salutary proposition that admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. While under the Education Act of 1982, students have a right "to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation," such right is subject, as all rights are, to the established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic institution. For private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students. This right . . . extends as well to parents . . . as parents are under a social and moral (if not legal) obligation, individually and collectively, to assist and cooperate with the schools.

Such rules are "incident to the very object of incorporation and indispensable to the successful management of the college. The rules may include those governing student discipline." Going a step further, the establishment of rules governing university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student discipline, may be regarded as vital, if not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival. Within memory of the current generation is the eruption of militancy in the academic groves as collectively, the students demanded and plucked for themselves from the panoply of academic freedom their own rights encapsulized under the rubric of "right to education" forgetting that, in Hohfeldian terms, they have a concomitant duty, that is, their duty to learn under the rules laid down by the school. (Emphasis supplied.) On the second issue presented for adjudication, the Court finds that the lower court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction of May 29, 1993. The issuance of the said writ was based on the lower court's finding that the implementation of the disciplinary sanction of suspension on Nadal "would work injustice to the petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his course, and consequently, in getting a decent and good paying job." Sadly, such a ruling considers only the situation of Nadal without taking into account the circumstances clearly of his own making, which led him into such a predicament. More importantly, it has completely disregarded the overriding issue of academic freedom which provides more than ample justification for the imposition of a disciplinary sanction upon an erring student of an institution of higher learning. From the foregoing arguments, it is clear that the lower court should have restrained itself from assuming jurisdiction over the petition filed by Nadal. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the petitioner being required. 38 It is of no avail against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. 39 Hence, by issuing the writ of preliminary injunction, the lower court dared to tread upon legally forbidden grounds. For, by virtue of the writ, the University's exercise of academic freedom was peremptorily curtailed. Moreover, the door was flung wide open for Nadal to do exactly what the decision of the BOR prohibited him from doing and that is, to violate the suspension order by enrolling for the first semester of 1993-1994. It must have been with consternation that the University officials helplessly watching him complete his academic requirements for taking the Bar. 40 In the event that he be allowed to continue with his studies he would, in effect render moot and academic the disciplinary sanction of suspension legally imposed upon him by the BOR's final decision of March 29, 1993. What is to prevent other aspirants for STFAP scholarships from misleading the University authorities by misrepresenting certain facts or as in instant case, withholding vital information and stating downright falsehoods, in their application forms with impunity? Not only would this undermine the authority of the U.P. to discipline its students who violated the rules and regulations of the institution but, more importantly, subvert the very concept and lofty intent to give financial assistance to poor but deserving students through the STFAP which, incidentally, has not ceased refining and modifying it's operations. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the lower court is hereby ordered to DISMISS the petition formandamus. SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grio-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Footnotes 1 Rollo, p. 72. 2 Ibid., pp. 133-134. 3 Ibid., p. 74. 4 Ibid, pp. 75-76. 5 Ibid, p. 39. 6 Composed of Fedor E. Santos as Chairman and Emmanuel J. de Guzman and Quintin R. Resurreccion as Members. 7 Antonio was a dentistry student at the UERM while Federico was an economics student at the De La Salle University (Rollo, p. 85). 8 Rollo, pp. 130, 150-151. 9 Ibid, pp. 153-154. 10 Ibid, p. 155. 11 Minutes of the 1057th Meeting of the BOR, Rollo, pp. 157-158. 12 Petition, p. 10; Rollo, p. 11. 13 Minutes of the 1061st (special) meeting of the BOR, Rollo, pp. 184-186. 14 TSN of the May 25, 1993 hearing at the lower court in SP Civil Case No. Q-9315655; Rollo, p. 192. 15 Petition, p. 13; Rollo, p. 14. 16 Rollo, p. 214. 17 Petition, p. 14; Rollo, p. 15. 18 Ibid, pp. 15-16 or p. 16-17. 19 Presided by Judge Elsie Ligot-Telan. 20 Rollo, p. 241. 21 Comment, pp. 2-3; Rollo, pp. 244-245.

22 Republic v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90667, November 5, 1991, 203 SCRA 310; 324; Gan Hock v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 70648, May 20, 1991, 197 SCRA 223, 230. 23 Annex "T" to Petition; Rollo, p. 217. 24 Eden v. Ministry of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 72145, February 28, 1990, 182 SCRA 840citing Baguio v. Rodriguez, 105 Phil. 1323 (1959). 25 G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993. 26 Comment, p. 14; Rollo, p. 256. 27 G.R. No. 89317, May 20, 190, 185 SCRA 523. 28 Comment, p. 10; Rollo, p. 252. 29 Comment, p. 10; Rollo, p. 252. 30 TSN, May 25, 1993, p. 3; Rollo, p. 189. 31 TSN, May 25, 1993, p. 16; Rollo, p. 294. 32 Ibid, at p. 18 or p. 203. 33 Ibid, at p. 6 or p. 192. 34 Ibid, at pp. 8 or 194. 35 Lansang v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 480. 36 L-40779, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 277. 37 Supra. 38 University of Pangasinan Faculty Union v. NLRC, G.R. No. 64821-23, January 29, 1993. 39 Calderon v. Solicitor General, G.R. Nos. 103752-53, November 25, 1992, 215 SCRA 876, 882. 40 Reply, pp. 17-18; Rollo, pp. 422-423.