TABLARIN VS. GUTIERREZ [152 SCRA 730; G.R. No.
78164; 31 "(a) To determine and prescribe requirements for admission into a
July 1987]
Facts: The petitioners sought to enjoin the Secretary of Education,
Culture and Sports, the Board of Medical Education and the Center for
Educational Measurement from enforcing Section 5 (a) and (f) of
Republic Act No. 2382, as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, series of
1985, dated 23 August 1985 and from requiring the taking and passing
of the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for
admission, from proceeding with accepting applications for taking the
NMAT and from administering the NMAT as scheduled on 26 April
1987 and in the future. The trial court denied said petition on 20 April
1987. The NMAT was conducted and administered as previously
scheduled.
Republic Act 2382, as amended by Republic Acts Nos. 4224 and 5946,
known as the "Medical Act of 1959" defines its basic objectives in the
following manner:
"SECTION 1. Objectives. This Act provides for and shall govern (a)
the standardization and regulation of medical education; (b) the
examination for registration of physicians; and (c) the supervision,
control and regulation of the practice of medicine in the Philippines."
The statute, among other things, created a Board of Medical Education.
Its functions as specified in Section 5 of the statute include the
following:
recognized college of medicine;
x x x
(f) To accept applications for certification for admission to a medical
school and keep a register of those issued said certificate; and to collect
from said applicants the amount of twenty-five pesos each which shall
accrue to the operating fund of the Board of Medical Education;
Section 7 prescribes certain minimum requirements for applicants to
medical schools:
"Admission requirements. The medical college may admit any
student who has not been convicted by any court of competent
jurisdiction of any offense involving moral turpitude and who presents
(a) a record of completion of a bachelor's degree in science or arts; (b) a
certificate of eligibility for entrance to a medical school from the Board
of Medical Education; (c) a certificate of good moral character issued
by two former professors in the college of liberal arts; and (d) birth
certificate. Nothing in this act shall be construed to inhibit any college
of medicine from establishing, in addition to the preceding, other
entrance requirements that may be deemed admissible.
MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985, issued by the then Minister of Education,
Culture and Sports and dated 23 August 1985, established a uniform
admission test called the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) as
an additional requirement for issuance of a certificate of eligibility for
admission into medical schools of the Philippines, beginning with the
school year 1986-1987. This Order goes on to state that: "2. The NMAT,
an aptitude test, is considered as an instrument toward upgrading the
selection of applicants for admission into the medical schools and its
calculated to improve the quality of medical education in the country.
The cutoff score for the successful applicants, based on the scores on
the NMAT, shall be determined every year by the Board of Medical
Education after consultation with the Association of Philippine
Medical Colleges. The NMAT rating of each applicant, together with
the other admission requirements as presently called for under existing
rules, shall serve as a basis for the issuance of the prescribed certificate
of eligibility for admission into the medical colleges.
Issue: Whether or not Section 5 (a) and (f) of Republic Act No. 2382, as
amended, and MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 are constitutional.
Held: Yes. We conclude that prescribing the NMAT and requiring
certain minimum scores therein as a condition for admission to medical
schools in the Philippines, do not constitute an unconstitutional
imposition.
The police power, it is commonplace learning, is the pervasive and non-
waivable power and authority of the sovereign to secure and promote
all the important interests and needs in a word, the public order
of the general community. An important component of that public
order is the health and physical safety and well being of the population,
the securing of which no one can deny is a legitimate objective of
governmental effort and regulation. Perhaps the only issue that needs
some consideration is whether there is some reasonable relation
between the prescribing of passing the NMAT as a condition for
admission to medical school on the one hand, and the securing of the
health and safety of the general community, on the other hand. This
question is perhaps most usefully approached by recalling that the
regulation of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been
recognized as a reasonable method of protecting the health and safety
of the public.
MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 articulates the rationale of regulation of
this type: the improvement of the professional and technical quality of
the graduates of medical schools, by upgrading the quality of those
admitted to the student body of the medical schools. That upgrading is
sought by selectivity in the process of admission, selectivity consisting,
among other things, of limiting admission to those who exhibit in the
required degree the aptitude for medical studies and eventually for
medical practice. The need to maintain, and the difficulties of
maintaining, high standards in our professional schools in general, and
medical schools in particular, in the current stage of our social and
economic development, are widely known. We believe that the
government is entitled to prescribe an admission test like the NMAT as
a means for achieving its stated objective of "upgrading the selection of
applicants into [our] medical schools" and of "improv[ing] the quality
of medical education in the country. We are entitled to hold that the
NMAT is reasonably related to the securing of the ultimate end of
legislation and regulation in this area. That end, it is useful to recall, is
the protection of the public from the potentially deadly effects of
incompetence and ignorance in those who would undertake to treat
our bodies and minds for disease or trauma.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED and the Order

of the respondent trial court denying the petition for a writ of
preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioners.
Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals The students thus filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari with
preliminary injunction/restraining order before the Regional Trial
Facts
Court of Quezon City questioning the jurisdiction of the Discipline
Board of Miriam College over them. The RTC issued an order denying
Miriam college has found its school paper (Chi-Rho), and
the plaintiffs prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order. The students
magazine (Ang Magasing Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho) contents of the
thereafter filed a Supplemental Petition and Motion for
September-October 1994 issue Obscene, vulgar, indecent,
Reconsideration. The RTC issued an Order granting the writ of
gross, sexually explicit, injurious to young readers, and devoid
preliminary injunction. Both parties moved for a reconsideration of the
of all moral values. Following the publication of the paper and the
order. On the matter raised by both parties that it is the DECS which
magazine, the members of the editorial board, author, all students of
has jurisdiction, the RTC DISMISSED the case and all orders it issued
Miriam College, received a letter signed by Dr. Aleli Sevilla, Chair of
are recalled and set aside. The CA issued a Temporary Restraining
the Miriam College Discipline Committee to inform them that their are
Order enjoining Miriam College from enforcing letters of
letters of complaint filed against them by members of the Miriam
dismissal/suspension, but it eventually declared the RTC Order, as
Community and a concerned Ateneo grade five student that had been
well as the students suspension and dismissal, void.
forwarded to the Discipline Committee for inquiry and investigation
and required them submit a written statement in answer to the
Issue
charge/s on or before the initial date of hearing, but none of the
students submitted their respective answers. They instead requested 1. Whether or not the trail court has the jurisdiction to
Dr. Sevilla to transfer the case to the Regional Office of the Department entertain the petition for certiorari filed by the students
of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), which they contested, that
2. Whether or not Miriam College has the jurisdiction over
had jurisdiction over the case. Dr. Sevilla again required the students
the complaints against the students.
to file their written answers. In response, the lawyer for the students
submitted a letter to the Discipline Committee reiterating his clients Held
position that said Committee had no jurisdiction over them. According
1. YES, the grounds invoked by the students in their refusal
to Atty. Valmonte, the Committee was "trying to impose discipline on
to answer the charges against them were limited to the
his clients on account of their having written articles and poems in their
question of jurisdiction a question purely legal in nature
capacity as campus journalists." Hence, he argued that "what applies is
and well within the competence and the jurisdiction of the
Republic Act No. 7079 The Campus Journalism Act and its
trial court, not the DECS Regional Office. This is an
implementing rules and regulations." He also questioned the partiality
exception to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
of the members of said Committee who allegedly "had already
articulated their position" against his clients. As the Court held in Phil. Global Communications, Inc. vs.
Relova : Absent such clarity as to the scope and coverage of
The Discipline Committee proceeded with its investigation ex its franchise, a legal question arises which is more
parte. Thereafter, the Discipline Board, after a review of the Discipline appropriate for the judiciary than for an administrative
Committees report, imposed disciplinary sanctions upon the students. agency to resolve. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction
The students were suspended, expelled, dismissed, and one was not calls for application when there is such competence to act
allowed to attend her graduation. on the part of an administrative body.
A court having jurisdiction of a case has not only the right
and the power or authority, but also the duty, to exercise
 that jurisdiction and to render a decision in a case properly
submitted to it.
2. YES, Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act should be read in
a manner as not to infringe upon the school's right to discipline
its students. At the same time, however, we should not
construe said provision as to unduly restrict the right of the
students to free speech. Consistent with jurisprudence, we
read Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act to mean that the
school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis
of the articles he or she has written,except when such articles
materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder
or invasion of the rights of others.
The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power
to suspend or expel. It is a necessary corollary to the
enforcement of rules and regulations and the maintenance of a
safe and orderly educational environment conducive to
learning. That power, like the power to suspend or expel, is an
inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of higher
learning guaranteed by the Constitution.
SC rule that Miriam College has the authority to hear
and decide the cases filed against students.
Spouses Go v. Colegio de San Juan de
Letran
FACTS:
Kim Go was named among several high school students involved
and present at a hazing rite of Tau Gamma held on October 3, 2001
in the house of one Dulce, in Tondo, Manila.
Kims mother, Mrs. Angelita Go, was then informed at the Parents-
Teacher conference by Mr. Rosarda of her sons participation as a
fraternity member
The fourth year students involved were to be allowed to graduate
from Letran, whereas those who werent were allowed to finish
their current school year but were to be barred from subsequent
enrollment in Letran.
Mrs. Go later on submitted a request for the deferment of Kims
suspension so that he could take a previously scheduled exam.
Several conferences addressing the students involved in the
fraternity were gone unattended by the spouses Go despite
consistent notification.
The respondents proposed that the students and their parents sign
a pro-forma agreement to signify their conformity with their
suspension to which Mr. and Mrs. Go didnt sign, refusing to accept
the findings that Kim was a fraternity member, and that there was
a lack of due process in the findings.
Petitioners filed a complaint for damages claiming that
respondents had unlawfully dismissed Kim, and for the
compensation for business opportunity losses they have suffered
while personally attending to Kims disciplinary case.
ISSUE:
1. WON petitioners were denied due process in the opportunity to be
heard in Kims disciplinary case
2. WON there was bad faith, malice, fraud, or any improper and willful
motive or conduct on the part of the respondents to justify the award
of damages
HELD:
Mrs. Gos letter specifically requested that Kims suspension be
deferred proving that they were well aware that is was not a
dismissal. The request to allow Kim to take his examination further
supports the conclusion that Kim had not been dismissed.
Order No. 20, s. 1991 (Prohibition of Fraternities and Sororities in
Elementary and Secondary Schools) of the then Dept. of Education,
Culture, & Sports is clear that the intent of the department is to apply
prohibition against fraternity membership for all elementary and high
school students, regardless of their school of enrollment.
Letrans rule against high school students joining fraternities is
reasonable because of the adult oriented activities often associated
when most, if not all, high school students are minors. This is a rule
clearly stated in its enrollment contracts and student handbooks
notably acknowledged by the signature of Mrs. Go on the contract.
Guzman v. National University: Due process in student disciplinary
cases does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those
prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. They may
be summary, and cross-examination is not an essential part thereof. The
viewing and examining of written statements is admissible in due
process.
The written notice rule is to inform the student of the disciplinary
charge against him and to enable him to suitably prepare a defense.
Kim had enough time to prepare his response. The essence of due
process, the opportunity to be heard, had been given.
Records can confirm that respondents did not act with bad faith,
malice, fraud, or improper or willful motive or conduct in disciplining
Kim. No actual damages either as Mr. Gos testimony that he neglected
his business affairs to attend to Kims case is based on speculation.