UP vs.

Ayson
G.R. No. 88386 August 17, 1989
FACTS:
The UP Board of Regents issued an order abolishing the
University of the Philippines College Baguio High School
(UPCBHS) on the ground that such school is not serving as a
laboratory or demonstration school, among others, invoking
in their favor academic freedom. The UPCBHS filed a petition
for injunction with preliminary preventive mandatory
injunction with a prayer for the issuance a TRO in the CFI,
invoking the right to quality education and free public
secondary education. The CFI granted this and issued an
order restraining the Board from implementing their decision
to phase out the UPCBHS. Thus, this petition for certiorari. (In
the meantime while the case is pending, the SC issued a TRO
enjoining the implementation of the assailed order of the
CFI.)

ISSUE:
Whether a petition for certiorari/prohibition to restrain the
Board from implementing the decision of phasing out
UPCBHS is proper?
HELD: No.
It is beyond cavil that the UP, as an institution of
higher learning, enjoys academic freedomthe
institutional kind. It decides for itself its aims and
objectives and how best to attain them. It is free from
outside coercion or interference save possibly when
the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.
Acts of an administrative agency within their areas of
competence must be casually overturned by the
courts.
Mandamus is not proper to compel a school to
enroll a student for academic deficiencies
because this involves the exercise by the school
of discretion under academic freedom.
In Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola
School of Theology, the Court had occasion to note the
scope of academic freedom recognized by the

Constitution as follows: reference is to the 'institutions

of higher learning' as the recipients of this boon. It
would follow then that the school or college itself is
possessed of such a right. It decides for itself its aims
and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free
from outside coercion or interference save possibly
when the overriding public welfare calls for some
restraint. It has a wide sphere of autonomy certainly
extending to the choice of students It is the business
of a university to provide that atmosphere which is
most conducive to speculation, experiment and
creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail the
four essential freedom of a universityto determine
for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what
may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may
be admitted to study
Rep. Act No. 6655, otherwise known as the "Free Public
Secondary Education Act of 1988," includes in its
coverage state colleges and universities (SCUs)
offering secondary courses. Respondents cointend that
since a secondary course is being offered in UPCB,
petitioners cannot unilaterally withdraw therefrom,
otherwise, the said Act would be nothing but a mere
nullity for all other SCUs. Besides, respondents
contend, petitioners already recognized the
applicability of Rep. Act No. 6655 when they
implemented the same at the UPCBHS for School Year
1988-89 and petitioners' assertion that UPCBHS was
established only if it would be "self-supporting and
should not entail any subsidy from the budget of UP" is
but a lame excuse.
UPCBHS was established subject to a number of
conditionalities, e.g., it must be self-supporting, it can
serve as a feeder for the UP at Baguio, it can serve as
a laboratory and demonstration school for prospective
teachers, failing in which the University can order its
abolition on academic grounds, specially where the
purposes for which it was established was not
satisfied. It is apparent that secondary education is not
the mandated function of the University of the
Philippines; consequently, the latter can validly phase

out and/or abolish the UPCBHS especially so when the

requirements for its continuance have not been met,
Rep. Act No. 6655 to the contrary notwithstanding.