Non v Judge Dames

May 20, 1990

Cortes

Petitioner: Ariel Non et al.

Respondent: Judge Danes, Mabini Colleges Inc. represented by president Romulo

Adeva and chairman of the Board of Trustees Jutso Lukban

Facts:

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.

RTC dismissed petition and Motion for Reconsideration stating:

o 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.

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.

Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction
Issue:

WON school authorities may limit the constitutional rights of free speech and
assembly of students

Held:

School authorities may limit students exercise of constitutional rights within

the school.
The exercise of these rights does not make school authorities virtually
powerless to discipline students. Disciplinary action against students for
breach of discipline can be given but the penalty imposed must be
commensurate to the offense committed and, as set forth in Guzman, it must
be imposed only after the requirements of procedural due process have been
complied with
Ratio:

Inker v Des Moines Community School District: If a students conduct

materially disrupts class work or invades the rights of others, he/she is not
immunized by the constitutional right of free speech
Malabanan case: School authorities can apply sanctions in cases wherein
students permitted to hold a rally violated the terms of the permit by holding
the demonstration in a place other than that specified and longer than the
period allowed
Guzman case: Imposition of disciplinary sanctions must undergo procedural
due process
o Inform the students in writing of the nature and cause of accusation
o Students shall have the right to answer the charges with the assistance
of counsel
o Students shall be informed of evidence against them
o They shall have the right to adduce evidence on their own behalf
o Evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee
designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case
Penalty must be proportionate to the offense committed lest there be
arbitrariness
However, 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