non v. judge danes

8/18/2019 Non v. Judge Danes

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/non-v-judge-danes 1/18

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. 89317 May 20, 1990

ARIEL NON, REX MAGANA, ALVIN AGURA, NORMANDY OCCIANO, ORGE DAYAON,LOURDES !ANARES, !ARTOLOME I!ASCO, EMMANUEL !AR!A, SONNY MORENO,GIOVANI PALMA, OSELITO VILLALON, LUIS SANTOS, a"# DANIEL TORRES, petitioners,vs.$ON. SANC$O DANES II, %" &%' (a)a(%*y a' *&+ P +'%#%"- #-+ o/ *& R+-%o"a T %a Co *,! . 38, Da+*, Ca a %"+' No *+ a"# MA!INI COLLEGES, INC., +) +'+"*+# 4y %*' ) +'%#+"*ROMULO ADEVA a"# 4y *&+ (&a% a" o/ *&+ !oa # o/ T '*++', USTO LU5!AN, 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 anc to review and reverse the doctrine laid down in Alcua!, etal . v . Philippine School of "usiness Administration, et al ., G.R. No. !"#", Ma$ %, &'((, &!& )CRA

, to the effect that a college student, once ad*itted b$ the school, is considered enrolled onl$ forone se*ester and, hence, *a$ be refused read*ission after the se*ester is over, as the contractbetween the student and the school is dee*ed ter*inated.

Petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini Colleges, +nc. in aet, Ca*arines Norte, were notallowed to re-enroll b$ the school for the acade*ic $ear &'((-&'(' for leading or participating instudent *ass actions against the school in the preceding se*ester. he sub/ect of the protests isnot, however, *ade clear in the pleadings.

Petitioners filed a petition in the court a #uo see0ing their read*ission or re-enroll*ent to the school,but the trial court dis*issed the petition in an order dated August (, &'((1 the dispositive portion ofwhich reads2

34ERE56RE, pre*ises considered, and the fact that the ruling in the Alcua!vs . PS"A is e7actl$ on the point at issue in this case but the authorit$ of the schoolregarding ad*ission of students, save as a *atter of co*passionate e8uit$ 9 whenan$ of the petitioners would, at the least, 8ualif$ for re-enroll*ent, this petition ishereb$ +)M+))E .

)6 6R ERE . : $ollo , p. &%-A.;



A *otion for reconsideration was filed, but this was denied b$ the trial court on 5ebruar$ %<, &'(' inthis wise2

Perhaps *an$ will agree with the critical co**ent of =oa8uin G. Bernas ).=., andthat reall$ there *ust be a better wa$ of treating students and teachers than the*anner ruled >not suggested? b$ the )upre*e Court, the er*ination of Contract atthe end of the se*ester, that is.

But applicable rule in the case is that enunciated b$ the )upre*e Court in the caseof Sophia Alcua!, et al . vs . Philippine School of "usiness Administration, @ue onCit$ Branch >P)BA?, et al., G.R. No. !"#", Ma$ %, &'((1 that of the ter*ination atthe end of the se*ester, reason for the critical co**ents of =oa8uin G. Bernas and

oods )antos, who both do not agree with the ruling.

Petitioners clai* of lac0 of due process cannot prosper in view of their failure tospecificall$ den$ respondent s affir*ative defenses that the$ were given all thechances to air their grievances on 5ebruar$ ', &D, &!, and &(, &'((, and also on

5ebruar$ %%, &'(( during which the$ were represented b$ Att$. =ose . apa0 andthat on 5ebruar$ %%, &'((, the date of the resu*ption of classes at Mabini College,petitioners continued their rall$ pic0eting, even though without an$ renewal per*it,ph$sicall$ coercing students not to attend their classes, thereb$ disrupting thescheduled classes and depriving a great *a/orit$ of students of their right to bepresent in their classes.

Against this bac0drop, it *ust be noted that the petitioners waived their privilege tobe ad*itted for re-enroll*ent with respondent college when the$ adopted, signed,and used its enroll*ent for* for the first se*ester of school $ear &'((-('. )aid for*specificall$ states that2

he Mabini College reserves the right to den$ ad*ission of studentswhose scholarship and attendance are unsatisfactor$ and to re8uirewithdrawal of students whose conduct discredits the institution andFor whose activities undul$ disrupts or interfere with the efficientoperation of the college. )tudents, therefore, are re8uired to behavein accord with the Mabini College code of conduct and discipline.

+n addition, for the sa*e se*ester, petitioners dul$ signed pledges which a*ongothers unifor*l$ reads2

+n consideration of *$ ad*ission to the Mabini College and of *$

privileges as student of this institution, + hereb$ pledgeF pro*iseunder oath to abide and co*pl$ with all the rules and regulations laiddown b$ co*petent authorities in the College epart*ent or )choolin which + a* enrolled. )pecificall$2

777 777 777



". + will respect *$ Al*a Matter the Mabini College, which + representand see to it that + conduct *$self in such a *anner that the collegewig not be put to a bad light1

777 777 777

'. + will not release false or unauthori ed announce*ent which tendto cause confusion or disrupt the nor*al appreciation of the college.

Moreover, a clear legal right *ust first be established for a petition for *anda*us toprosper >)ec. ", Rule !#?. +t being a *ere privilege and not a legal right for a studentto be enrolled or reenrolled, respondent Mabini College is free to ad*it or not ad*itthe petitioners for re-enroll*ent in view of the acade*ic freedo* en/o$ed b$ theschool in accordance with the )upre*e Court rulings in the cases of Garciavs . Faculty %Admission &ommittee' >G.R. No. <D ', Nove*ber %(, &' #?and (angonon vs . Pano, et al . > -<#&# , =une % , &'(#?.

34ERE56RE, pre*ises and /urisprudence considered, and for lac0 of *erit, the*otion for reconsideration of the order of this Court dated August (, &'(( is hereb$

EN+E .

)6 6R ERE . : $ollo pp. &#-&!.;

4ence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with pra$er for preli*inar$ *andator$in/unction.

he case was originall$ assigned to the )econd ivision of the Court, which resolved on April &D,&'(' to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for proper deter*ination and disposition. he Court of

Appeals ordered respondents to co**ent on the petition and set the application for issuance of awrit of preli*inar$ *andator$ in/unction for hearing. After considering the co**ent and hearing thein/unction application, the Court of Appeals resolved on Ma$ %%, &'(' to certif$ the case bac0 to the)upre*e Court considering that onl$ pure 8uestions of law were raised.

he case was assigned to the hird ivision of the Court, which then transferred it to the Court enanc on August %&, &'(' considering that the issues raised are /urisdictional. 6n )epte*ber &<,

&'(', the Court en anc accepted the case and re8uired respondents to co**ent.

Respondents filed their co**ent on Nove*ber &", &'('. Petitioners were re8uired to repl$. As repl$,the$ filed a pleading entitled Counter-Co**ent, to which respondents filed a re/oinder entitled

Repl$ to Counter-Co**ent o this petitioners filed a Re/oinder to Repl$.

he issues having been /oined, the case was dee*ed sub*itted.

At the heart of the controvers$ is the doctrine encapsuled in the following e7cerpt fro* Alcua! 2

+t is be$ond dispute that a student once ad*itted b$ the school is considered enrolledfor one se*ester. +t is provided in Paragraph &" Manual of Regulations for Private)chools, that when a college student registers in a school, it is understood that he is



school who, after leading and participating in student protests, were denied read*ission or re-enroll*ent for the ne7t se*ester. his is a case that focuses on the right to speech and asse*bl$ ase7ercised b$ students vis*a*vis the right of school officials to discipline the*.

hus, although respondent /udge believed hi*self bound b$ the ruling in Alcua! :6rder dated August(, &'((1 $ollo , pp. &%&%-A;, he actuall$ viewed the issue as a conflict between students rights andthe school s power to discipline the*, to wit2

)tudents should not be denied their constitutional and statutor$ right to education,and there is such denial when students are e7pelled or barred fro* enroll*ent for thee7ercise of their right to free speech and peaceable asse*bl$ andFor sub/ected todisciplinar$ action without abiding with the re8uire*ents of due process. Also, it isunderstandable for student leaders to let loose e7tre*el$ critical and, at ti*es,vitriolic language against school authorities during a student rall$.

But the right of students is no license and not without li*it . . . :6rder of 5ebruar$ %<,&'('1 $ollo , p. &".;

&. (he Student /oes 0ot Shed 1is &onstitutionally Protected $ights at the Schoolgate .

Central to the de*ocratic tradition which we cherish is the recognition and protection of the rights offree speech and asse*bl$. hus, our Constitution provides2

)ec. <. No law shall be passed abridging the freedo* of speech, of e7pression, or ofthe press, or the right of the people peaceabl$ to asse*ble and petition thegovern*ent for redress of grievances. :Art. +++.;

his guarantee is not peculiar to the &'( Constitution. A si*ilar provision was found in the &' "Constitution, as a*ended :Art. H+, sec. ';, the &'"# Constitution, as a*ended :Art. +++, sec. (&, thePhilippine Autono*$ Act >=ones aw? :)ec. ", para. &";, and the Philippine Bill of &'D% :)ec. &#,para. &";. hus, as earl$ as &'D , the Court in People v . Apurado , Phil. <%%, upheld the right tospeech and asse*bl$ to overturn a conviction for sedition. +t said2

)ection # of the Act No. %'% is as follows2

All persons who rise publicl$ and tu*ultuousl$ in order to attain b$force or outside of legal *ethods an$ of the following ob/ects areguilt$ of sedition2

777 777 777

%. o prevent the +nsular Govern*ent, or an$ provincial or *unicipalgovern*ent or an$ public official, fro* freel$ e7ercising its or hisduties or the due e7ecution of an$ /udicial or ad*inistrative order.

But this law *ust not be interpreted so as to abridge the freedo* of speech or theright of the people peaceabl$ to asse*ble and petition the Govern*ent for redress of grievances guaranteed b$ the e7press provisions of section # of the Philippine Bill.



777 777 777

+t is rather to be e7pected that *ore or less disorder will *ar0 the public asse*bl$ ofthe people to protest against grievances whether real or i*aginar$, because on suchoccasions feeling is alwa$s wrought to a high pitch of e7cite*ent, and the greater thegrievance and the *ore intense the feeling, the less perfect, as a rule, will be thedisciplinar$ control of the leaders over their irresponsible followers. But if theprosecution be per*itted to sei e upon ever$ instance of such disorderl$ conduct b$individual *e*bers of a crowd as an e7cuse to characteri e the asse*bl$ as aseditious and tu*ultuous rising against the authorities, then the right to asse*bleand to petition for redress of grievances would beco*e a delusion and a snare andthe atte*pt to e7ercise it on the *ost righteous occasion and in the *ost peaceable*anner would e7pose all those who too0 part therein to the severest and *ostun*erited punish*ent, if the purposes which the$ sought to attain did not happen tobe pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. +f instances of disorderl$ conduct occur onsuch occasions, the guilt$ individuals should be sought out and punished therefor,but the ut*ost discretion *ust be e7ercise in drawing the line between disorderl$ and

seditious conduct and between an essentiall$ peaceable asse*bl$ and a tu*ultuousuprising. :At pp. <%<, <%!.;

hat the protection to the cognate rights of speech and asse*bl$ guaranteed b$ the Constitution issi*ilarl$ available to students is well-settled in our /urisdiction. +n the leading case of Mala ananv . $amento , G.R. No. !%% D, Ma$ %&, &'(<, &%' )CRA "#', the Court, spea0ing through Mr. Chief=ustice 5ernando in an en anc decision, declared2

777 777 777

<. Petitioners invo0e their rights to peaceable asse*bl$ and free speech. he$ areentitled to do so. he$ en/o$ li0e the rest of the citi ens the freedo* to e7press theirviews and co**unicate their thoughts to those disposed to listen in gatherings suchas was held in this case. he$ do not, to borrow fro* the opinion of =ustice 5ortasin (in er v . /es Moines &ommunity School /istrict , shed their constitutional rights tofreedo* of speech or e7pression at the schoolhouse gate. 3hile therefore, theauthorit$ of educational institutions over the conduct of students *ust be recogni ed,it cannot go so far as to be violative of constitutional safeguards. :At pp. "! -"!(.;

he facts in Mala anan are onl$ too fa*iliar in the genre of cases involving student *ass actions2

. . . Petitioners were officers of the )upre*e )tudent Council of respondent :Gregorio Araneta; niversit$. he$ sought and were granted b$ the school authorities a per*it

to hold a *eeting fro* (2DD A.M. to &%2DD P.M. on August % , &'(%. Pursuant to suchper*it, along with other students, the$ held a general asse*bl$ at the Heterinar$Medicine and Ani*al )cience >HMA)? the place indicated in such per*it, not in thebas0etball court as therein stated but at the respond floor lobb$. At such gatheringthe$ *anifested in vehe*ent and vigorous language their opposition to the proposed*erger of the +nstitute of Ani*al )cience with the +nstitute of Agriculture. At &D2"D

A.M., the sa*e da$, the$ *arched toward the ife )cience building and continuedtheir rall$. +t was outside the area covered b$ their per*it. he$ continued theirde*onstration, giving utterance to language severel$ critical of the niversit$



authorities and using *egaphones in the process. here was, as a result,disturbance of the classes being held. Also, the non-acade*ic e*plo$ees, withinhearing distance, stopped their wor0 because of the noise created. he$ were as0edto e7plain on the sa*e da$ wh$ the$ should not be held liable for holding an illegalasse*bl$. hen on )epte*ber ', &'(%, the$ were infor*ed through a *e*orandu*that the$ were under preventive suspension for their failure to e7plain the holding ofan illegal asse*bl$ in front of the ife )cience Building. he validit$ thereof waschallenged b$ petitioners both before the Court of 5irst +nstance of Ri al in a petitionfor mandamus with da*ages against private respondents and before the Ministr$ ofEducation, Culture, and )ports. 6n 6ctober %D, &'(%, respondent Ra*ento, as

irector of the National Capital Region, found petitioners guilt$ of the charge ofhaving violated par. &<!>c? of the Manual for Private )chools *ore specificall$ theirholding of an illegal asse*bl$ which was characteri ed b$ the violation of the per*itgranted resulting in the disturbance of classes and oral defa*ation. he penalt$ wassuspension for one acade*ic $ear. . . . :At pp. "!"-"!<.;

he Court found the penalt$ i*posed on the students too severe and reduced it to a one-wee0

suspension.

he rule laid down in Mala anan was applied with e8ual force in three other en banc decisions of theCourt.

+nVillar v . (echnological )nstitute of the Philippines, G.R. No. !'&'(, April & , &'(#, &"# )CRA D!,the Court reiterated that the e7ercise of the freedo* of asse*bl$ could not be a basis for barringstudents fro* enrolling. +t en/oined the school and its officials fro* acts of surveillance, blac0listing,suspension and refusal to re-enroll. But the Court allowed the non-enroll*ent of students who clearl$incurred *ar0ed acade*ic deficienc$, with the following caveat 2

777 777 777

<. he acade*ic freedo* en/o$ed b$ institutions of higher learning includes theright to set acade*ic standards to deter*ine under what circu*stances failinggrades suffice for the e7pulsion of students. 6nce it has done so, however, thatstandard should be followed *eticulousl$. +t cannot be utili ed to discri*inate againstthose students who e7ercise their constitutional rights to peaceable asse*bl$ andfree speech. +f it does so, then there is a legiti*ate grievance b$ the students thuspre/udiced, their right to the e8ual protection clause being disregarded. :At p. &&.;

+n Arre!a v . Gregorio Araneta 2niversity Foundation , G.R. No. !%%' , =une &', &'(#, &" )CRA '<,a case arising fro* al*ost the sa*e facts as those in Mala anan , the Court re/ected the infliction of

the highl$- disproportionate penalt$ of denial of enroll*ent and the conse8uent failure of seniorstudents to graduate, if in the e7ercise of the cognate rights of free speech and peaceable asse*bl$,i*proper conduct could be attributed to the*. :At p. '(;.

+nGu!man v . 0ational 2niversity, G.R. No. !(%((, =ul$ &&, &'(!, &<% )CRA !'', respondent schoolwas directed to allow the petitioning students to re-enroll or otherwise continue with their respectivecourses, without pre/udice to an$ disciplinar$ proceedings that *a$ be conducted in connection withtheir participation in the protests that led to the stoppage of classes.



%.Permissi le 3imitations on Student E ercise of &onstitutional $ights 4ithin the School .

3hile the highest regard *ust be afforded the e7ercise of the rights to free speech and asse*bl$,this should not be ta0en to *ean that school authorities are virtuall$ powerless to discipline students.

his was *ade clear b$ the Court in Mala anan , when it echoed (in er v . /es Moines &ommunitySchool /istrict, "'" ) #D", #&<2 But conduct b$ the student, in class or out of it, which for an$reason 9 whether it ste*s fro* ti*e, place, or t$pe of behavior 9 *ateriall$ disrupts classwor0 orinvolves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not i**uni ed b$ theconstitutional guarantee of freedo* of speech.

hus, in Mala anan , the Court said2

777 777 777

(. +t does not follow, however, that petitioners can be totall$ absolved for the eventsthat transpired. Ad*ittedl$, there was a violation of the ter*s of the per*it. he rall$was held at a place other than that specified, in the second floor lobb$, rather than

the bas0etball court, of the >HMA)? building of the niversit$. Moreover, it wascontinued longer than the period allowed. According to the decision of respondentRa*ento, the concerted activit$ :referring to such asse*bl$ went on until #2"D p.*.Private respondents could thus, ta0e disciplinar$ action. . . . : At pp. " D-" &;.

But, as stated in Gu!man, the i*position of disciplinar$ sanctions re8uires observance of proceduraldue process. hus2

. . . here are withal *ini*u* standards which *ust be *et to satisf$ the de*andsof procedural due process1 and these are, that >&? the students *ust be infor*ed inwriting of the nature and cause of an$ accusation against the*1 >%? the$ shall havethe right to answer the charges against the*, with the assistance of counsel, ifdesired1 >"? the$ shall be infor*ed of the evidence against the*1 ><? the$ shall havethe right to adduce evidence in their own behalf1 and >#? the evidence *ust be dul$considered b$ the investigating co**ittee or official designated b$ the schoolauthorities to hear and decide the case. :At pp. D!- D ;.

Moreover, the penalt$ i*posed *ust be proportionate to the offense co**itted. As statedin Mala anan , :i;f the concept of proportionalit$ between the offense co**itted and sanctioni*posed is not followed, an ele*ent of arbitrariness intrudes. :At p. " &;.

". &ircumventing Esta lished /octrine .

Mala anan was decided b$ the Court in &'(<. )ince then, student *ass actions have escalated notonl$ because of political events that unfurled but also because of the constantl$ raging controvers$over increases in tuition fees. But the over-eager hands of so*e school authorities were noteffectivel$ tied down b$ the ruling in Mala anan . +nstead of suspending or e7pelling student leaderswho fell into disfavor with school authorities, a new variation of the sa*e stratage* was adopted b$the latter2 refusing the students read*ission or re-enroll*ent on grounds not related to, their alleged*isconduct of illegal asse*bl$ in leading or participating in student *ass actions directed againstthe school. hus, the spate of e7pulsions or e7clusions due to acade*ic deficienc$.



<. (he 0ature of the &ontract "et-een a School and its Student .

he Court, in Alcua! , anchored its decision on the ter*ination of contract theor$. But it *ust berepeatedl$ e*phasi ed that the contract between the school and the student is not an ordinar$contract. +t is i*bued with public interest, considering the high priorit$ given b$ the Constitution toeducation and the grant to the )tate of supervisor$ and regulator$ powers over all educationalinstitutions :)ee Art. I+H, secs. &-%, <>&?;.

Respondent school cannot /ustif$ its actions b$ rel$ing on Paragraph &" of the Manual ofRegulations for Private )chools, which provides that :w;hen a student registers in a school, it isunderstood that he is enrolling . . . for the entire se*ester for collegiate courses, which the Courtin Alcua! construed as authorit$ for schools to refuse enroll*ent to a student on the ground that hiscontract, which has a ter* of one se*ester, has alread$ e7pired.

he ter*ination of contract theor$ does not even find support in the Manual. Paragraph &" *erel$clarifies that a college student enrolls for the entire se*ester. +t serves to protect schools whereintuition fees are collected and paid on an install*ent basis, i.e. collection and pa$*ent of the

downpa$*ent upon enroll*ent and the balance before e7a*inations. hus, even if a student doesnot co*plete the se*ester for which he was enrolled, but has sta$ed on for *ore than two wee0s,he *a$ be re8uired to pa$ his tuition fees for the whole se*ester before he is given his credentialsfor transfer. his is the i*port of Paragraph &" , subsu*ed under )ection H++ on uition and 6ther5ees, which in its totalit$ provides2

&" . 3hen a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for theentire school $ear for ele*entar$ and secondar$ courses, and for the entire se*ester for collegiate courses. A student who transfers or otherwise withdraws, in writing,within two wee0s after the beginning of classes and who has alread$ paid thepertinent tuition and other school fees in full or for an$ length of ti*e longer than one*onth *a$ be charged ten per cent of the total a*ount due for the ter* if hewithdraws within the first wee0 of classes, or twent$ per cent if within the secondwee0 of classes, regardless of whether or not he has actuall$ attended classes. hestudent *a$ be charged all the school fees in full if he withdraws an$ti*e after thesecond wee0 of classes. 4owever, if the transfer or withdrawal is due to a /ustifiablereason, the student shall be charged the pertinent fees onl$ up to and including thelast *onth of attendance.

Clearl$, in no wa$ *a$ Paragraph &" be construed to *ean that the student shall be enrolled foronl$ one se*ester, and that after that se*ester is over his re-enroll*ent is dependent solel$ on thesound discretion of the school. 6n the contrar$, the Manual recogni es the right of the student to beenrolled in his course for the entire period he is e7pected to co*plete it. hus, Paragraph &D states2

Ever$ student has the right to enrol in an$ school, college or universit$ upon *eetingits specific re8uire*ent and reasonable regulation2 Provided , that e7cept in the caseof acade*ic delin8uenc$ and violation of disciplinar$ regulation, the student ispresu*ed to be 8ualified for enrol*ent for the entire period he is e7pected toco*plete his course without pre/udice to his right to transfer.

his presu*ption has been translated into a right in Batas Pa*bansa Blg. %"%, the Education Actof &'(%. )ection ' of this act provides2



)ec. '. $ights of Students in School . 9 +n addition to other rights, and sub/ect to theli*itations prescribed b$ law and regulations, students and pupils in all schools shallen/o$ the following rights2

777 777 777

%. he right to freel$ choose their field of stud$ sub/ect to e7istingcurricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation, e7ceptin cases of acade*ic deficienc$, or violation of disciplinar$regulations.

777 777 777

#. Academic Freedom 0ot a Ground for /enying Students5 $ights .

Respondent /udge, in his order dated 5ebruar$ %<, &'(', stated that respondent Mabini College isfree to ad*it or not ad*it the petitioners for re-enroll*ent in view of the acade*ic freedo* en/o$ed

b$ the school : $ollo , p. &!;. o support this conclusion, he cited the cases of Garcia v . (he Faculty Admission &ommittee, 3oyola School of (heology , G.R. No. -<D ', Nove*ber %(, &' #, !( )CRA% , and (angonan v . Pano, G.R. No. -<#&# , =une % , &'(#, &" )CRA %<#, where the Courte*phasi ed the institutions discretion on the ad*ission and enroll*ent of students as a *a/orco*ponent of the acade*ic freedo* guaranteed to institutions of higher learning.

hese cases involve different facts and issues. +n Garcia , the issue was whether a fe*ale la$student has a clear legal right to co*pel a se*inar$ for the priesthood to ad*it her for theologicalstudies leading to a degree. +n (angonan , the issue was whether a nursing student, who wasad*itted on probation and who has failed in her nursing sub/ects, *a$ co*pel her school to read*ither for enroll*ent.

Moreover, respondent /udge loses sight of the Court s une8uivocal state*ent in Villar that the right of an institution of higher learning to set acade*ic standards cannot be utili ed to discri*inate againststudents who e7ercise their constitutional rights to speech and asse*bl$, for otherwise there win bea violation of their right to e8ual protection :At p. &&;

!. &apitol Medical &enter and 3icup .

+n support of the action ta0en b$ respondent /udge, private respondents cite the recent casesof &apitol Medical &enter, )nc . v . &ourt of Appeals, G.R. No. (%<'', 6ctober &", &'(', and 3icupv . 2niversity of San &arlos, G.R. No. (#("', 6ctober &', &'(', both decided b$ the 5irst ivision ofthe Court.

3e find the issues raised and resolved in these two decisions dissi*ilar fro* the issues in thepresent case.

+n&apitol Medical &enter , the Court upheld the decision of the school authorities to close down theschool because of proble*s e*anating fro* a labor dispute between the school and its facult$. heCourt ruled that the students had no clear legal right to de*and the reopening of the school.



6n the other hand, in 3icup the issue resolved was whether or not the students were affordedprocedural due process before disciplinar$ action was ta0en against the*. hus, the Court stated2

he Court finds no cogent basis for the protestations of petitioners that the$ weredeprived of due process of law and that the investigation conducted was far fro*i*partial and fair. 6n the contrar$, what appear fro* the record is that the chargesagainst petitioners were ade8uatel$ established in an appropriate investigation. hei*putation of bias and partialit$ is not supported b$ the record. . . .

Moreover, 3icup , far fro* adopting the ter*ination of contract theor$ in Alcua! , i*pliedl$ re/ected it,to wit2

3hile it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue their education, the)C as an educational institution is also entitled to pursue its acade*ic freedo* and

in the process has the conco**itant right to see to it that this freedo* is not /eopardi ed.

(rue, an institution of learning has a contractual o ligation to afford its students a fair opportunity to complete the course they see to pursue . 4owever, when a studentco**its a serious breach of discipline or fails to *aintain the re8uired acade*icstandard, he forfeits his contractual right1 and the court should not review thediscretion of universit$ authorities. >E*phasis supplied.?

. (he )nstant &ase .

o /ustif$ the school s action, respondents, in their Co**ent dated Nove*ber &%, &'(', 8uoting fro*their answer filed in the trial court, allege that of the thirteen >&"? petitioners eight >(? have incurredfailing grades, to wit2

a? Ariel Non has not onl$ failed in four ><? sub/ects but also failed to cause thesub*ission of 5or* &" which is a pre-re8uisite to his re- enroll*ent and to hiscontinuing as a student of Mabini1

b? Re7 Magana not onl$ has failed in one >&? sub/ect but also has inco*plete gradesin four ><? sub/ects as well as no grades in two >%? sub/ects1

c? Elvin Agura failed in two >%? sub/ects and has three >"? inco*plete grades1

d? E**anuel Barba has failed in one >&? sub/ect, and has to still ta0e CM & & to %%.4e is alread$ enrolled at Ago 5oundation1

e? =oselito Hillalon has inco*plete grades in nine >'? sub/ects1

f? uis )antos has failed in one >&? sub/ect1

g? George a$aon has failed in four ><? sub/ects and has to re*ove the inco*pletegrade in one >&? sub/ect1



h? aniel orres has failed in five >#? sub/ects, has to re*ove inco*plete grades infive >#? *ore ob/ects and has no grade in one >&? sub/ect. : $ollo , p. '.;

Petitioners have not denied this, but have countered this allegation as follows2

777 777 777

>&&? Petitioners were and are prepared to show, a*ong others, that2

a? hree of the &" of the* were graduating. >Ad*itted in the Answer.?

b? heir acade*ic deficiencies, if an$, do not warrant non- read*ission. > he Answerindicates onl$ ( of the &" as with deficiencies.?

c? heir breach of discipline, if an$, was not serious.

d? he i*proper conduct attributed to the* was during the e7ercise of the cognate

rights of free speech and peaceable asse*bl$, particularl$ a 5ebruar$ &'(( studentrall$. > he cru7 of the *atter, as shown even in the Answer.?

e? here was no due investigation that could serve as basis for disciplinar$ action. >+neffect, ad*itted in the Answer1 even Alcua! re8uired due process.?

f? Respondents ad*it students with worse deficiencies 9 a clear case ofdiscri*ination against petitioners for their role in the student rall$. >An e8ualprotection 8uestion.?

g? Respondent school is their choice institution near their places of residence which

the$ can afford to pa$ for tertiar$ education, of which the$ have alread$ lost one-and-a-half school-$ears 9 in itself punish*ent enough. : $ollo , p. (!;.

Clearl$, the five >#? students who did not incur failing *ar0s, na*el$, Nor*and$ 6cciano, ourdesBanares, Bartolo*e +basco, )onn$ Moreno and Giovani Pal*a, were refused re-enroll*ent without

/ust cause and, hence, should be allowed to re-enroll.

6n the other hand, it does not appear that the petitioners were afforded due process, in the *annere7pressed in Gu!man, before the$ were refused re-enroll*ent. +n fact, it would appear fro* thepleadings that the decision to refuse the* re-enroll*ent because of failing grades was a *ereafterthought. +t is not denied that what incurred the ire of the school authorities was the student *assactions conducted in 5ebruar$ &'(( and which were led andFor participated in b$ petitioners.

Certainl$, e7cluding students because of failing grades when the cause for the action ta0en againstthe* undeniabl$ related to possible breaches of discipline not onl$ is a denial of due process butalso constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair pla$.

Moreover, of the eight >(? students with failing grades, so*e have onl$ one or two failures, na*el$,Re7 Magana, Elvin Agura, E**anuel Barba, and uis )antos. Certainl$, their failures cannot beconsidered *ar0ed acade*ic deficienc$ within the conte7t of the Court s decision in Villar .



hen, as to the students who incurred several failing grades, na*el$, Ariel Non, =oselito Hillalon,George >=orge? a$aon, and aniel orres, it is not clear fro* respondents enu*eration whetherthe failures were incurred in onl$ one se*ester or through the course of several se*esters of stud$in the school. Neither are the acade*ic standards of respondent school, fro* which we can gaugewhether or not these students are acade*icall$ deficient, alleged b$ respondents. hus, while theprerogative of schools to set acade*ic standards is recogni ed, we cannot affir* respondentschool s action as to petitioners Non, Hillalon, a$aon and orres because of insufficient infor*ation.

3ith regard to petitioner E**anuel Barba who respondents clai* has enrolled in Ago 5oundation,such fact alone, if true, will not bar hi* fro* see0ing read*ission in respondent school.

4owever, these should not be ta0en to *ean that no disciplinar$ action could have been ta0enagainst petitioners for breach of discipline if the facts had so warranted. +n line with the Court s rulingin Mala anan , petitioners could have been sub/ected to disciplinar$ proceedings in connection withthe 5ebruar$ &'(( *ass actions. But the penalt$ that could have been i*posed *ust beco**ensurate to the offense co**itted and, as set forth in Gu!man, it *ust be i*posed onl$ afterthe re8uire*ents of procedural due process have been co*plied with. his is e7plicit fro* the

Manual of Regulations for Private )chools, which provides in Paragraph &<# that :n;o penalt$ shallbe i*posed upon an$ student, e7cept for cause as defined in this Manual andFor in the school s rulesand regulations dul$ pro*ulgated and onl$ after due investigation shall have been conducted.

But this *atter of disciplinar$ proceedings and the i*position of ad*inistrative sanctions havebeco*e *oot and acade*ic. Petitioners, who have been refused read*ission or re-enroll*ent andwho have been effectivel$ e7cluded fro* respondent school for four ><? se*esters, have alread$been *ore than sufficientl$ penali ed for an$ breach of discipline the$ *ight have co**itted whenthe$ led and participated in the *ass actions that, according to respondents, resulted in thedisruption of classes. o still sub/ect the* to disciplinar$ proceedings would serve no useful purposeand would onl$ further aggravate the strained relations between petitioners and the officials ofrespondent school which necessaril$ resulted fro* the heated legal battle here, in the Court of

Appeals and before the trial court.

34ERE56RE, the petition is GRAN E . he orders of respondent /udge dated August (, &'(( and5ebruar$ %<, &'(' are hereb$ ANN E . Respondent Mabini College is 6R ERE to read*itand to allow the re- enroll*ent of petitioners, if the$ are still so *inded, without pre/udice to its ta0ingthe appropriate action as to petitioners Ariel Non, =oselito Hillalon, George >=orge? a$aon and

aniel orres, if it is shown b$ their records >5or* &" ? that the$ have failed to satisf$ the school sprescribed acade*ic standards.

)6 6R ERE .

Fernan, & .J., 0arvasa, Gutierre!, Jr., &ru!, Feliciano, Paras, Gancayco, "idin, Medialdea and$egalado, JJ., concur.

Gri6o*A#uino, J., is on leave.



S+)a a*+ O)%"%o"'

MELENCIO $ERRERA, J., concurring2

i0e Mr. =ustice eodoro R. Padilla, + had concurred in the *a/orit$ opinion in Alcua!, et al .,vs . Philippine School of "usiness Administration, et al ., G.R. No. !"#", % Ma$ &'((, &!& )CRA .

But, as + had e7pressed in *$ vote on the Motion for Reconsideration in the said Alcua! caseE7cept for the general state*ent that students enroll*ent is li*ited to per se*ester, + concur.

+n other words, + agree with M*e. =ustice Cortes that the ter*ination of contract doctrine should beoverturned for being a doctrinal error. +t is now clear >it was 8uoted out of conte7t before? thatparagraph &" of the Manual of Regulations for Public )chools falls under )ection H++ on uition and

6ther 5ees and is intended *erel$ to protect schools wherein tuition fees are collected and paid oninstall*ent basis. +t cannot be construed to *ean that a student shall be enrolled for onl$ onese*ester.

As to the power of discipline, *$ view still is that schools should retain that prerogative, with thecaveat that the penalt$ the$ i*pose be proportionate to the offense co**itted.

PADILLA, J ., concurring2

+ concurred in the *a/orit$ opinion in Alcua!, et al . vs . Philippine School of "usiness Administration,et al ., G.R. No. !"#", % Ma$ &'((, &!& )CRA including therefore that portion of the opinion whichheld that under par. &" , Manual of Regulations for Private )chools, a college student in a privateschool is enrolled onl$ for one >&? se*ester and that after each se*ester the school cannot beco*pelled to enter into another contract with said students . . . .

4owever, after carefull$ considering the decision penned b$ Mada*e =ustice Cortes in the case atbar, + a* inclined to agree with her that the contract between the school and students is not anordinar$ contract. +t is i*bued with public interest, considering the high priorit$ given b$ theConstitution to education . . . >p. &#, ecision?.

+t would indeed appear that, consistent with this constitutional priorit$ given to education, par. &D ofthe Manual of Regulations for Private )chools should be underscored. +t provides that ever$ studenthas the right to enroll in an$ school college or universit$ upon *eeting its specific re8uire*ents and

reasonable regulations1 . . . and that the student is presu*ed to be 8ualified for enroll*ent for theentire period he is e pected to complete the course, without pre/udice to his right to transfer.

+t should be stressed, however, that this right of students to enroll is not designed to leave schoolsco*pletel$ helpless to den$ enroll*ent or re- enroll*ent. 5or, par. &D itself of the Manual ofRegulations for Private )chools still recogni es the right of the school to refuse enroll*ent in case of acade*ic deficienc$ or violation of disciplinar$ regulations of the school.



SARMIENTO, J ., concurring2

+ have alwa$s held that schools are not free to penali e, b$ ad*inistrative sanction or outrighte7pulsion, students on account alone of the fact that the$ had ta0en part in *ass actions orasse*blies. 1

)tudents, as all persons, en/o$ freedo* of speech and asse*bl$, right granted b$ the Constitution,and one nobod$ *a$ abridge. he opinion of the *a/orit$ reaffir*s this funda*ental principle.

his case also clarifies the true i*port of Paragraph &" of the Manual of Regulations for Private)chools, i.e., that it is intended *erel$ to enable schools to collect fees for the entire se*esteralthough the student *a$ not have co*pleted the se*ester. But in no wa$ *a$ learning institutionsuse the provision as an e7cuse to dis*iss students after one se*ester on the ground of ter*inationof contract.

he ter*ination of contract theor$ espoused b$ Alcua! v . Philippine School of "usiness Administration 2 has indeed allowed schools to circu*vent the guarantees of the Constitution b$ den$ing

erring students of their right to enroll, when the single error co**itted b$ the students was toparticipate in political activities. As + said, our students have as *uch right to disagree 9 whether againstschool policies or govern*ent progra*s, and whether in or out of the school co*pound 9 and no prior or subse8uent penalt$ *a$ be inflicted on account of such acts alone.

o be sure, the school *a$ punish students for breach of discipline, as, sa$, for brea0ing chairs orwindow panes or for disrupting classes in the course of a de*onstration, but the$ *a$ be penali edfor those actions alone and not because of the content of their speech or the vociferousness withwhich it was said . 3 Moreover, violations of school discipline *ust be /udged on a case to case basis and*easured depending on gravit$ before school authorities *a$ legiti*atel$ act. + do not thin0 that the factthat a de*onstration has disrupted ongoing classes is a ground for penali ing students ta0ing part thereinbecause a de*onstration, fro* its ver$ nature, is li0el$ to disrupt classes. he school *ust convincingl$

show that the de*onstrators had deliberatel$ turned to lawlessness, sa$, b$ barricading the school gateor the classroo* entrances or otherwise prevented non-de*onstrating students or *e*bers of the facult$fro* attending a class or publishing one b$ threats or inti*idation. 6nl$ in that sense *a$ school headsvalidl$ invo0e disruption of classes.

As far as discipline is concerned, this Court has laid down guidelines for proper school action.+nMala anan v .$amento, as in the present case, we held that the punish*ent *ust fit the cri*e,and in Gu!man v . 0ational 2niversity , we ruled that before an$ penalt$ *a$ be i*posed, the studentsconcerned should be allowed to be heard b$ the*selves or representatives. +n all cases, the courtsshould be war$ 9 and the school authorities *ust the*selves convince the /udge that punish*ent *etedout is due to a real in/ur$ done to the school and not for the fact that the students had si*pl$ e7pressedtheir constitutional right to disagree.

As to failing grades, + agree that, as we held in Villar v . (echnological )nstitute of thePhilippines, acade*ic deficienc$ is a legal basis for, a*ong other things, e7pulsion. 4owever, as Hillarwarned, educational institutions *ust set standard to deter*ine under what circu*stances failing gradessuffice for the e7pulsion of students, 7 and that such standards should be followed *eticulousl$, 8 andthat the$ cannot be utili ed to discri*inate against those students who e7ercise their constitutional rightsto peaceable asse*bl$ and free speech. 9 3hat this decision *a0es plain is that the school *ust pre-setthe ground rules for either suspension or e7pulsion of students b$ reason of falling *ar0s which *ust beobserved with reasonable unifor*it$. he school can not use it to spring surprises on students with failing



grades, who also happen to be politicall$ active in the ca*pus, after the authorities had long toleratedtheir poor perfor*ance. +n this case, our courts *ust also e7ercise caution that, as disruption of classes ,resort to failing grades is not done to evade the constitutional *andates.

+ ta0e note of the increasing practice b$ school heads to si*pl$ bar students fro* enroll*ent for ahost of e7cuses as a result of their e7ercise of constitutional rights. + a* gratified that the *a/orit$has put an end to this practice.

+ concur full$ with M*e. =ustice +rene Cortes ponencia .

S+)a a*+ O)%"%o"'

MELENCIO $ERRERA, J ., concurring2

i0e Mr. =ustice eodoro R. Padilla, + had concurred in the *a/orit$ opinion in Alcua!, et al .,

vs . Philippine School of "usiness Administration, et al ., G.R. No. !"#", % Ma$ &'((, &!& )CRA .

But, as + had e7pressed in *$ vote on the Motion for Reconsideration in the said Alcua! caseE7cept for the general state*ent that students enroll*ent is li*ited to per se*ester, + concur.

+n other words, + agree with M*e. =ustice Cortes that the ter*ination of contract doctrine should beoverturned for being a doctrinal error. +t is now clear >it was 8uoted out of conte7t before? thatparagraph &" of the Manual of Regulations for Public )chools falls under )ection H++ on uition and6ther 5ees and is intended *erel$ to protect schools wherein tuition fees are collected and paid oninstall*ent basis. +t cannot be construed to *ean that a student shall be enrolled for onl$ onese*ester.

As to the power of discipline, *$ view still is that schools should retain that prerogative, with thecaveat that the penalt$ the$ i*pose be proportionate to the offense co**itted.

PADILLA, J ., concurring2

+ concurred in the *a/orit$ opinion in Alcua!, et al . vs . Philippine School of "usiness Administration,et al ., G.R. No. !"#", % Ma$ &'((, &!& )CRA including therefore that portion of the opinion whichheld that under par. &" , Manual of Regulations for Private )chools, a college student in a privateschool is enrolled onl$ for one >&? se*ester and that after each se*ester the school cannot beco*pelled to enter into another contract with said students . . . .

4owever, after carefull$ considering the decision penned b$ Mada*e =ustice Cortes in the case atbar, + a* inclined to agree with her that the contract between the school and students is not anordinar$ contract. +t is i*bued with public interest, considering the high priorit$ given b$ theConstitution to education . . . >p. &#, ecision?.

+t would indeed appear that, consistent with this constitutional priorit$ given to education, par. &D ofthe Manual of Regulations for Private )chools should be underscored. +t provides that ever$ studenthas the right to enroll in an$ school college or universit$ upon *eeting its specific re8uire*ents and



reasonable regulations1 . . . and that the student is presu*ed to be 8ualified for enroll*ent for theentire period he is e pected to complete the course, without pre/udice to his right to transfer.

+t should be stressed, however, that this right of students to enroll is not designed to leave schoolsco*pletel$ helpless to den$ enroll*ent or re- enroll*ent. 5or, par. &D itself of the Manual ofRegulations for Private )chools still recogni es the right of the school to refuse enroll*ent in case of acade*ic deficienc$ or violation of disciplinar$ regulations of the school.

SARMIENTO, J ., concurring2

+ have alwa$s held that schools are not free to penali e, b$ ad*inistrative sanction or outrighte7pulsion, students on account alone of the fact that the$ had ta0en part in *ass actions orasse*blies. 1

)tudents, as all persons, en/o$ freedo* of speech and asse*bl$, right granted b$ the Constitution,and one nobod$ *a$ abridge. he opinion of the *a/orit$ reaffir*s this funda*ental principle.

his case also clarifies the true i*port of Paragraph &" of the Manual of Regulations for Private)chools, i.e., that it is intended *erel$ to enable schools to collect fees for the entire se*esteralthough the student *a$ not have co*pleted the se*ester. But in no wa$ *a$ learning institutionsuse the provision as an e7cuse to dis*iss students after one se*ester on the ground of ter*inationof contract.

he ter*ination of contract theor$ espoused b$ Alcua! v . Philippine School of "usiness Administration 2 has indeed allowed schools to circu*vent the guarantees of the Constitution b$ den$ing

erring students of their right to enroll, when the single error co**itted b$ the students was toparticipate in political activities. As + said, our students have as *uch right to disagree 9 whether againstschool policies or govern*ent progra*s, and whether in or out of the school co*pound 9 and no prior or subse8uent penalt$ *a$ be inflicted on account of such acts alone.

o be sure, the school *a$ punish students for breach of discipline, as, sa$, for brea0ing chairs orwindow panes or for disrupting classes in the course of a de*onstration, but the$ *a$ be penali edfor those actions alone and not because of the content of their speech or the vociferousness withwhich it was said . 3 Moreover, violations of school discipline *ust be /udged on a case to case basis and*easured depending on gravit$ before school authorities *a$ legiti*atel$ act. + do not thin0 that the factthat a de*onstration has disrupted ongoing classes is a ground for penali ing students ta0ing part thereinbecause a de*onstration, fro* its ver$ nature, is li0el$ to disrupt classes. he school *ust convincingl$show that the de*onstrators had deliberatel$ turned to lawlessness, sa$, b$ barricading the school gateor the classroo* entrances or otherwise prevented non-de*onstrating students or *e*bers of the facult$fro* attending a class or publishing one b$ threats or inti*idation. 6nl$ in that sense *a$ school headsvalidl$ invo0e disruption of classes.

As far as discipline is concerned, this Court has laid down guidelines for proper school action.+nMala anan v .$amento, as in the present case, we held that the punish*ent *ust fit the cri*e,and in Gu!man v . 0ational 2niversity , we ruled that before an$ penalt$ *a$ be i*posed, the studentsconcerned should be allowed to be heard b$ the*selves or representatives. +n all cases, the courtsshould be war$ 9 and the school authorities *ust the*selves convince the /udge that punish*ent *etedout is due to a real in/ur$ done to the school and not for the fact that the students had si*pl$ e7pressedtheir constitutional right to disagree.



As to failing grades, + agree that, as we held in Villar v . (echnological )nstitute of thePhilippines, acade*ic deficienc$ is a legal basis for, a*ong other things, e7pulsion. 4owever, as Hillarwarned, educational institutions *ust set standard to deter*ine under what circu*stances failing gradessuffice for the e7pulsion of students, 7 and that such standards should be followed *eticulousl$, 8 andthat the$ cannot be utili ed to discri*inate against those students who e7ercise their constitutional rightsto peaceable asse*bl$ and free speech. 9 3hat this decision *a0es plain is that the school *ust pre-set

the ground rules for either suspension or e7pulsion of students b$ reason of falling *ar0s which *ust beobserved with reasonable unifor*it$. he school can not use it to spring surprises on students with failinggrades, who also happen to be politicall$ active in the ca*pus, after the authorities had long toleratedtheir poor perfor*ance. +n this case, our courts *ust also e7ercise caution that, as disruption of classes ,resort to failing grades is not done to evade the constitutional *andates.

+ ta0e note of the increasing practice b$ school heads to si*pl$ bar students fro* enroll*ent for ahost of e7cuses as a result of their e7ercise of constitutional rights. + a* gratified that the *a/orit$has put an end to this practice.

+ concur full$ with M*e. =ustice +rene Cortes ponencia .

:oo*"o*+'

J Mr. Chief =ustice 5ernan, Mr. =ustice Narvasa, M*e. =ustice 4errera, Mr. =usticeCru , Mr. =ustice 5eliciano, Mr. =ustice )ar*iento, and M*e. =ustice Cortes

&See Alcua v. Philippine )chool of Business Ad*inistration, No. !"#", Ma$ %,&'((, &!& )CRA , )ar*iento, =., issenting.

%Supra .

" Malabanan v. Ra*ento No. !%% D, Ma$ %&, &'(<, &%' )CRA "#'

< See ) v. Apurado, Phil. <%% >&'D ?.

# No. !(%((, =ul$ &&, &'(!, &<% )CRA !''.

! No. !'&'(, April & , &'(#, &"# )CRA D!.

Supra &&.

( Supra

non v. judge danes

Documents