Ateneo de Manila v Capulong

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.