https://www.scribd.

com/doc/100277465/ATENEO-v-Capulong
ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. HON. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULaONG(G.R. 99327 May 27,
1993)
FACTS: Aguila Legis, a fraternity in Ateneo Law School, held its initiation rites upon
neophytes.As a result thereof, one neophyte named Leonardo "Lennie" H. Villa, a first year law
student,died of serious physical injuries. Another freshman student by the name of Bienvenido
Marquezwas also hospitalized for acute renal failure occasioned by the serious physical injuries
inflictedupon him on the same occasion. Dean del Castillo created an investigating committee
whichwas tasked to investigate and submit a report regarding the circumstances surrounding
thedeath of Lennie Villa. The respondent students were asked to submit their written
statementsbut failed to do so. In the meantime, they were placed in preventive suspension.
Theinvestigating committee, after receiving the written statements and hearing the testimonies
of several witness, found a prima facie case against respondent students for violation of Rule 3
of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline." Respondent students were then required to
filetheir written answers to the formal charge. Petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board to
hearthe charges against respondent students. The Board found respondent students guilty
of violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits
participationin hazing activities. However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the members
of the Boardon the penalty of dismissal, the Board left the imposition of the penalty to
theUniversity Administration. Accordingly, Fr. Bernas imposed the penalty of dismissal on
allrespondent students. Respondent students filed with RTC Makati a temporary restraining
order(TRO) since they are currently enrolled.
Judge Capulong, upon students appeal, ordered Ateneo to reverse its decision and reinstate
the said students
ISSUE/S: Whether a school is within its rights in expelling students from its academiccommunity
pursuant to its disciplinary rules and moral standards
RULING: YES. As corporate entities, educational institutions of higher learning are
inherentlyendowed with the right to establish their policies, academic and otherwise,
unhampered byexternal controls or pressure. The Supreme Court consistently upheld the
salutary propositionthat admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon a
school, the samebeing a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right. While under the
education Actof 1982, students have a right "to freely choose their field of study, subject to
existing curriculaand to continue their course therein up to graduation," such right is subject, as
all rights are, tothe established academic and disciplinary standards laid down by the academic
institution.

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/02/ateneo-de-manila-university-vs-hon.html
ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. HON. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULONG [222 SCRA 644;
G.R. 99327; 27 MAY 1993]
Sunday, February 01, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law
Facts: Leonardo H. Villa, a first year law student of Petitioner University, died of serious
physical injuries at Chinese General Hospital after the initiation rites of Aquila Legis. Bienvenido
Marquez was also hospitalized at the Capitol Medical Center for acute renal failure occasioned
by the serious physical injuries inflicted upon him on the same occasion. Petitioner Dean
Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee
which was tasked to investigate and submit a report within 72 hours on the circumstances
surrounding the death of Lennie Villa. Said notice also required respondent students to submit
their written statements within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt. Although respondent
students received a copy of the written notice, they failed to file a reply. In the meantime, they
were placed on preventive suspension. The Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating
Committee, after receiving the written statements and hearing the testimonies of several
witness, found a prima facie case against respondent students for violation of Rule 3 of the Law
School Catalogue entitled "Discipline." Respondent students were then required to file their
written answers to the formal charge. Petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board to hear the
charges against respondent students. The Board found respondent students guilty of violating
Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing
activities. However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the
penalty of dismissal, the Board left the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration.
Accordingly, Fr. Bernas imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students.
Respondent students filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently enrolled. This was
granted. A TRO was also issued enjoining petitioners from dismissing the respondents. A day
after the expiration of the temporary restraining order, Dean del Castillo created a Special Board
to investigate the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza. This was
requested to be stricken out by the respondents and argued that the creation of the Special
Board was totally unrelated to the original petition which alleged lack of due process. This was
granted and reinstatement of the students was ordered.
Issue: Was there denial of due process against the respondent students.
Held: There was no denial of due process, more particularly procedural due process. Dean of
the Ateneo Law School, notified and required respondent students to submit their written
statement on the incident. Instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested through their
counsel, copies of the charges. The nature and cause of the accusation were adequately
spelled out in petitioners' notices. Present is the twin elements of notice and hearing.
Respondent students argue that petitioners are not in a position to file the instant petition under
Rule 65 considering that they failed to file a motion for reconsideration first before the trial court,
thereby by passing the latter and the Court of Appeals. It is accepted legal doctrine that an
exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is when the case involves a question of law,
as in this case, where the issue is whether or not respondent students have been afforded
procedural due process prior to their dismissal from Petitioner University.

Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic

institutions, such as petitioner university herein, thus:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against
them;
(2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of
counsel, if desired:
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated
by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

http://www.uberdigests.info/2011/10/ateneo-de-manila-university-vs-judge-capulong/
Ateneo de Manila University vs Judge Ignacio Capulong
October 26, 2011
No comments
222 SCRA 644 Political Law Constitutional Law Academic Freedom Power of School to
Dismiss Erring Students
On February 8, 9, and 10 of 1991, a fraternity in Ateneo Law School named Aquila Legis
conducted its initiation rites upon neophytes. Unfortunately, one neophyte died as a result
thereof and one was hospitalized due to serious physical injuries. In a resolution dated March 9,
1991, the Disciplinary Board formed by Ateneo found seven students guilty of violating Rule 3 of
the Rules on Discipline. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, then president of Ateneo, on the basis of the
findings, ordered the expulsion of the seven students. However, on May 17, 1991, Judge
Ignacio Capulong of the Makati RTC, upon the students petition for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus, ordered Ateneo to reverse its decision and reinstate the said students.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Ateneo Law School has competence to issue an order dismissing
such students pursuant to its rules.
HELD: Yes, Ateneo has the competence and the power to dismiss its erring students and
therefore it had validly exercised such power. The students do not deserve to claim such a
venerable institution such as Ateneo as their own a minute longer for they may forseeably cast
a malevolent influence on students currently enrolled as well as those who come after
them. This is academic freedom on the part of the school which includes:
a. freedom to determine who may teach;
b. freedom to determine what may be taught;
c. freedom to determine how it shall be taught;

d. freedom to determine who may be admitted to study.