Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Republic of the Philippines c) that if the protest move exceeds 1:00 it will be limited only up to 2:30 p.m.

SUPREME COURT
Manila
d) However, before any action is taken the organizers of the protest action should
secure a permit 6 days before, or if on the same day, it still be under the "first-come-
SECOND DIVISION first-serve served" basis in the use of facilities, volume of sound system shall be
adjusted so as not to disturb classes.
G.R. No. 76353 May 2, 1988
It is the firm stand of the administration of PSBA that it will not allow the students to
directly participate in the policy-making body of the school, as this is provided by law.
SOPHIA ALCUAZ, MA. CECILIA ALINDAYU BERNADETTE ANG, IRNA ANONAS, MA, REMEDIOS
However, the administration will be open to suggestions and questions, especially
BALTAZAR, CORAZON BUNDOC JOHN CARMONA, ANNA SHIELA DIÑOSO, RAFAEL
those regarding tuition fee increases and other policies that directly affect us.
ENCARNACION, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Quezon City Branch (PSBA), DR. JUAN In spite of the above-stated agreement, petitioners felt the need to hold dialogues. Among others they
D. LIM, in his capacity as President and Chairman of Board of Trustees of PSBA, ATTY. P. demanded the negotiation of a new agreement, which demand was turned down by the school, resulting
PAULINO, etc., et al., respondents. in mass assemblies and barricades of school entrances (Rollo. p. 20; 347-348). "Subsequently dialogues
proved futile." Finally, petitioners received uniform letters from respondents dated October 8, 1986 (Rollo,
p. 23) giving them 3 days to explain why the school should not take / mete out any administrative sanction
Rosalinda L. Santos for petitioners.
on their direct participation and/or conspiring with others in the commission of tumultuous and anarchic
Balgos & Perez Law Office for respondents.
acts on Thursday (Oct. 2), Friday (Oct. 3) and Tuesday (Oct. 7). The aforestated letter was answered
Merly Basco-Olano for Intervenor Union.
<äre||anº• 1àw>

by the counsel for the students in a reply letter dated October 22, 1982 Annex "E" (Rollo, P. 26).
Camilo Flores for Intervenor

During the regular enrollment period, petitioners and other students similarly situated were allegedly
blacklisted and denied admission for the second semester of school year 1986-1987. On October 28,1986
PARAS, J.:
the President of the Student Council filed a complaint with the Director of the MECS against the PSBA
for barring the enrollment of the Student Council Officers and student leaders. (Annex "F" Rollo, p. 30).
This is a petition for review on certiorari and prohibition with motion for preliminary mandatory injunction seeking Simultaneously on the same date, the student council wrote the President, Board of Trustees, requesting
to nullify the action taken by herein respondent Philippine School of Business Administration, Quezon City for a written statement of the school's decision regarding their enrollment (Rollo, p. 31). Another demand
Branch, in violation of petitioners' constitutional rights. letter was made by Counsel for the students Atty. Alan Romulo Yap, also to the President, Board of
Trustees, to enroll his clients within forty-eight (48) hours (Rollo. p. 33). All these notwithstanding, no
The factual background of this case is as follows: relief appeared to be forthcoming, hence this petition.

Petitioners are all bonafide students of the Philippine School of Business Administration, Quezon City, In the resolution of November 7,1986, the Second Division of this Court without giving due course to the
while respondents, are the Philippine School of Business Administration (hereinafter referred to as PSBA) petition required respondents to comment thereon and set the hearing for preliminary mandatory
Quezon City Branch, a 'non-stock institution of higher learning organized and existing under the laws of injunction on November 10, 1986 (Rollo, p. 35). In compliance therewith on November 9, 1986,
the Philippines, Juan D. Lim, President and Chairman of the Board of PSBA; Benjamin P. Paulino, Vice respondents filed their comment and opposition to the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
President for Admission and Registration of PSBA, Q.C.; Ruben Estrella, Officer-in-Charge; and Ramon mandatory injunction praying that the petition for the issuance of a writ be denied not only for lack of merit
Agapay, Director of the Office of Student Affairs of PSBA, Q.C. and Romeo Rafer, Chief Security of PSBA, but also for being barred by res judicata (Rollo, p. 67).
Q.C.
Meanwhile, a motion for intervention was filed on November 10, 1986, by the Philippine School of
As early as March 22, 1986, the students of the respondent school and the respondent PSBA, Q.C. had Business Administration, Quezon City Faculty Union, (PSBA, QC-FU for brevity) representing the faculty
already agreed on certain matters which would govern their activities within the school (Rollo, p. 75). members hereinafter referred to as intervenors, on the ground of commonality of issues and cause of
Among the agreements reached at that time were: action with that of the petitioners (Rollo, p. 36).

On The exercise of student's democratic rights, it has been agreed that protest At the hearing on the petition for preliminary mandatory injunction, where counsel for all the parties
actions can be conducted any day as long as they meet the following requirements: appeared and argued their causes, the Court Resolved to grant the motion for intervention and to require
the intervenors to comment on the petition and the petitioners to file a reply thereto (Rollo, p. 66, copy
corrected, p. 167). On the same day respondents filed their comment and opposition to the application
a) that they be held at the PSBA quadrangle from 12:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. only; for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (Rollo, pp. 67-74).

b) that the protest action be removed to the PSBA parking lot if it will exceed the 1:00 On November 12, 1986, this Court resolved to issue a temporary mandatory order directing the
time limit; respondents herein (a) to re-enroll the petitioners herein and (b) to re-admit the intervenors to their former

Alcuaz v. PSBA 1
positions without prejudice to the investigation to be conducted by the school authorities (Rollo, p. 141). STUDENT-RESPONDENTS
Said Order was issued on November 14, 1986 (Rollo, pp. 142-143).
A. RENATO PALMA, BERNADETTE ANG, ROGELIO TAGANAS are hereby
A supplemental comment and opposition to application for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction recommended to be EXONERATED of all charges.
dated November 11, 1986 was filed by herein respondents (Rollo, p. 150), while an urgent motion to
reiterate prayer for issuance of preliminary mandatory injunction dated November 13, 1986 was filed by
B. SOPHIA ALCUAZ (up to No. 19) are hereby recommended to be HONORABLY
herein petitioners (Rollo, pp. 162-163).
DISMISSED from PSBA Q.C. roll of students without prejudice to reenrollment on a
case to case basis if found suitable and justified.
Instead of complying with tile resolution of November 12, 1986 an urgent motion for reconsideration was
filed by herein respondents on November 15, 1987 (Rollo, p. 194) praying that this Court reconsider the
FACULTY-RESPONDENTS
aforesaid resolution.

A. To be EXONERATED of all charges JOSE C. ANTONIO, DONALLY BRINGAS,


On November 18, 1986 petitioners and intervenors filed a joint urgent motin to cite respondents in
DANTE CAJUCOM, LEO LOQUELLANO SOLITA A. CRUZ, and N TOLENTINO.
contempt (Rollo, p. 199), while respondents filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration, also on the
same date (Rollo, p. 205).
B. To be reprimanded with a WARNING that a repetition of similar acts in the future
will be dealt with more severely FLORANTE BAGSIC and ATENOGENES
In the resolution of November 19,1986, respondents' motion for reconsideration and sumplemental
BONDOC.
motion for reconsideration were denied for lack of merit, and the denial was dedlared FINAL. The urgent
motion of counsel for petitioners and intervanorts to cite respondents in contempt of court was NOTED
(Rollo, p. 225). C. MR. SEVERINO CORTES, JR. is hereby recommended for non-renewal of his
semester to semester appointment.
An urgent motion for intervention and answer in intervention was filed by Nelia M. Lat, Annalisa T.
Geronimo, Leonora Q. Bueniraje, Maria L. Arañas, Eduerijes Llanto, Charita, R. Chong, Marilou Garcia, D. MESSRS. ASSER (BONG) TAMAYO and RENE Q. ENCARNACION are hereby
Amelita R. Sia, Loida O. Ladines, Dominic P. Santos, Noly R. Chong, and Arthur R. Cacdac for recommended for termination of their services as faculty members.
themselves and on behalf of other students of the PSBA, Quezon City, who are similarly situated, to allolw
them to intervene as respondents dated November 11, 1986 (Rollo, p. 227) which was granted by this
Court in a resoulution dated December 3, 1986 (Rollo, p. 240) Respondents adopted the aforestated recommendations of the Committee and prayed that the case be
dismissed for having become moot (Rollo, p. 341). On April 30, a second urgent manifestation and motion
was filed by respondent praying that the recommendation of special Committee as implemented by its
On November 20, 1986, the respondents filed their compliance with the temporary mandatory order; President be made effective by the discontinuance of the summer enrollment of petitioners Anna Shiela
Issued by this Court pursuant to its resolution dated November 12, 1987 (Rollo, p. 237). A. Dinoso, Zeny Gudito and Ma. Shalina Pitoy upon the refund to them of all the fees they have paid to
the school (Rollo, p. 397).
On November 29, 1986, respondents filed their comment on the motion for intervention of the PSBA
Quezon City Faculty Union (Rollo, p. 252). An urgent motion to cite for contempt herein respondents was filed on May 5, 1987 for violating this court's
temporary mandatory order on November 12, 1986, by discharging and striking off from the roll of
students petitioners Dinoso, Gudito and Pitoy (Rollo, p. 400) while an opposition to urgent motion to cite
A consolidated reply to respondents' supplemental comment and opposition to application for a writ of
for contempt was filed by herein respoddents on May 20, 1987 (Rollo, p. 413).
preliminary mandatory injunction, urgent motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion for
reconsideration was filed by herein in intervenors on December 2,1986 (Rollo. p. 242).
On May 20, 1987, Intervenor Union filed their Intervenor's Comment on Respondents' reply memorandum
and manifestation and motion with motion to cite respondent in contempt (Rollo, p. 417).
In the resolution of January 21, 1987, the petition was given due course and parties parties were required
to file their respective memoranda (Rollo, p. 266). Accordingly, respondents filed their memorandum on
February 23, 1987, (Rollo, p. 269) while the intervenor Union filed its memorandum on March 13, 1987 On June 8, 1987, petitioners filed their very urgent motion for an order to re-enroll (Rollo, p. 620) followed
(Rollo, p. 296). Respondents filed their reply memorandum on April 13, 1987 praying that the intervention by an urgent supplemental motion and Reply to opposition dated June 9, 1987 (Rollo, p. 623).
of the intervening teachers be dismissed (Rollo, p. 328).
Later on, an Opposition to "very urgent motion for order to re-enroll was filed by herein respondents on
Respondents filed their manifestation and motion dated April 27, 1987 stating that pursuant to this court's June 11, 1987 (Rollo, p. 625) while on June 15,1987, herein intervenor Union filed its manifestation and
order dated November 12, 1986, the school authorities created a special investigating committee to motion with urgent motion reiterating intervenor's motion to cite respondents in contempt (Rollo, p. 629).
conduct an investigation, which submitted a report with recommendations (Rollo, p. 335), the report
reading as follows:
On June 16,1987 respondents filed their opposition to urgent motion to oppose petitioners' urgent motion
dated June 9, 1987 (Rollo, p. 795)'. Petitioners filed their memorandum on June 17, 1987 (Rollo, p. 799).
After due deliberation, the Committee hereby submits the following recommendation:

Alcuaz v. PSBA 2
On June 18, 1987, respondents filed their counter-comment and opposition to motion to cite respondents Under similar circumstances where students have been refused re-enrollment but without allegation of
in contempt (Rollo, p. 815). Subsequently, on June 25,1987, respondents filed their Reply Memorandum termination of contracts as in the instant case, this Court has stressed, that due process in disciplinary
on the petitioners' memorandum (Rollo, p. 820.). cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions
and proceedings in courts of justice. Such proceedings may be summary and cross-examination is not
even an essential part thereof. Accordingly, the minimum standards laid down by the Court to meet the
In the resolution of June 29, 1 987 the motion of petitioners to compel respondents to readmit or re-enroll
demands of procedural due process are: (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and
herein petitioners was denied except in the case of three (3) student petitioners cleared by the
cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them,
investigating committee and who had been recommended to be readmitted or re-enrolled. This court
with the assistance of counsel, if desired: (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4)
further stated that the reason for the non-enrollment of the others is that the results of the investigation
they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf and (5) the evidence must be duly
conducted indicate prima facie the violation by the majority of the petitioners of the rules and regulations
considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and
of respondent school (Rollo, p. 793). The Court further resolved to require respondent school to show
decide the case (Guzman vs. National University, 142 SCRA 706-707 [1986]).
cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt for refusing to reinstate the intervenors-faculty members
in the interim.
Tested under said standards, the records show that the proceedings in the case at bar, at the outset
satisfied conditions No. 1 and 2, but, without a hearing, conditions No. 3, 4 and 5 had evidently not been
Respondents filed the manifestation on July 3, 1987 informing this Court that they did not refuse to
completed with.
reinstate the intervenors/faculty members; that they were in fact actually reinstated in compliance with
the Court's temporary mandatory order (Rollo, p. 829). Hence, the motion for contempt should be
dismissed. It is not disputed that printed Rules and Regulations of the PSBA-Q.C. are distributed at the beginning of
each school year to the students including petitioners. The Rules, among other things, provide:
The pivotal issue of this case is whether or not there has been deprivation of due process for petitioners-
students who have been barred from re-enrollment and for intervenors teachers whose services have Enrollment in the PSBA is contractual in nature and upon admission to the School,
been terminated as faculty members, on account of their participation in the demonstration or protest the Student is deemed to have agreed to bind himself to all rules/regulations
charged by respondents as "anarchic" rallies, and a violation of their constitutional rights of expression promulgated by t he Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports. Furthermore, he
and assembly. agrees that he may be required to withdraw from the School at any time for reasons
deemed sufficiently serious by the School Administration.
Petitioners allege that they have been deprived of procedural due process which requires that there be
due notice and hear hearing and of substantive due process which requires that the person or body to As previously stated, in violation of aforesaid Rules and Regulations, sore students staged noisy
conduct the investigation be competent to act and decide free from bias or prejudice. They claim that demonstrations in the premises of the school. For the settlement thereof, an agreement was reached
barring them from enrollment for the second semester is equivalent to expulsion which cannot be valid providing among otliers the regulations for the conduct of protest actions. Despite said agreement, it was
and effective without the required MEC's approval (Rollo, pp. 12-13). alleged that petitioners, acting as the core group of a noisy minoritv, committed tumultuous and anarchic
acts within the premises of the school, fanned by the cooperation of the intervening teachers, causing
disruption of classes to the prejudice of the majority of the students including the intervening ones; which
Furthermore, petitioners point out that the acts of respondents constitute a wanton and deliberate
acts now constitute the subject of this controversy (Rollo, p. 217 ).
disregard of petitioners' freedom of expression (ibid).

Accordingly, both students and teachers were given three (3) days from receipts of letter to explain in
In the same manner, intervenors-teachers claim that their constitutional right to due process has been
writing why the school should not take / mete out any administrative sanction on them in view of their
violated when they were summarily dismissed without affording them the opportunity to be heard (Rollo,
participation in the commission of tumultuous and anarchic acts on the dates stated.
p. 301).

Respondents alleged that none of the students ever filed a reply thereto. The records show however that
It is beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one semester.
a letter was sent by Atty. Alan Rollo Yap, in behalf of all PSBA students to the President of the School
It is provided in Paragraph 137 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college student
Mr. Juan D. Lim, explaining why said students are not guilty of the charges filed against them (Rollo, pp-
registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester. Likewise, it is provided
26-28). Similarly, a faculty member of the PSBA filed as answer in a letter to the same President of the
in the Manual, that the "written contracts" required for college teachers are for 'one semester." It is thus
school, where he denied the charges against him (Rollo, p. 52). It therefore becomes readily apparent
evident that after the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either
that while the students and the teachers have been informed in writing of the charges filed against them
with the students or with the intervening teachers. Such being the case, the charge of denial of due
and they in turn filed their answers thereto, no investigating committee or official was designated by the
process is untenable. It is a time-honored principle that contracts are respected as the law between the
school authorities to hear and decide the case upon the presentation of evidence of both parties.
contracting parties (Henson vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 72456, February 19, 1987,
Presumably, the schools banking on the theory that the contracts have already expired, said procedural
citing: Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 99 SCRA 722; Escano vs. Court of Appeals, 1 00 SCRA 197). The
steps are no longer necessary.
<äre||anº• 1àw>

contract having been terminated, there is no more contract to speak of. The school cannot be compelled
to enter into another contract with said students and teachers. "The courts, be they the original trial court
or the appellate court, have no power to make contracts for the parties." (Henson vs. Intermediate At any rate, this Court obviously to insure that full justice is done both to the students and teachers on
Appellate Court, et al., supra). the one hand and the school on the other, ordered an investigation to be conducted by the school
authorities, in the resolution of November 12, 1986.

Alcuaz v. PSBA 3
The investigating committee found among others that: there were concerted mass assemblies conducted The urgent motion of petitioners and intervenors to cite respondents in contempt of court is likewise
on October 2, 3, 7 and 8 at PSBA Quezon City, which were participated in by said students and teachers, untenable.
and which disrupted classes. The disruption of classes and the barricades in the school entrances
constitute violations of existing MECS and PSBA rules and regulations (Rollo, pp. 348-349). It is ironic
Contempt of court has been defined as a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such
that many of those who claim that their human rights have been violated are the very ones who
conduct as tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to interfere with or
emasculate the human rights of the innocent majority.
prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during litigation. (Hahn vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 136
SCRA 57 [1985]).
Moreover, petitioners named in the report were found to be academically deficient (Rollo, p. 273) while
the intervening teachers apart from participating in acts of illegality against the school were found to have
In the case at bar, there appears to be no defiance of authority by the mere filing by respondents of a
committed various acts of misconduct (Rollo. p. 275). Accordingly, three students were recommended for
motion for reconsideration of the resolution of November 12, 1986. In fact respondent school explained
exoneration from all charges, and some to be honorably dismissed. Of the faculty members eight were
that the intervenors were actually reinstated as such faculty members after the issuance of the temporary
recommended to be exonerated of all charges, two to be reprimanded, one for non-renewal of his
mandatory injunction. Thus, in the compliance submitted by said school on November 20, 1 986, it ma
semester to semester appointment and two to be terminated (Rollo, pp. 359-360).
manifested that 'without prejudice to the investigation to be conducted by the school authorities, ... and
in order that dislocations may not result with respect to the academic activities of the students and the
The right of the school to refuse re-enrollment of students for academic delinquency and violation of distribution of teaching loads among the teachers, the respondent school has created new classes for
disciplinary regulations has always been recognized by this Court (Tangonan vs. Paflo, 137 SCRA 246 the petitioners and the intervening teachers" beginning November 20, 1986.
[1985]; Ateneo de Manila University vs. CA, 145 SCRA 100 [1986]). Thus, the Court has ruled that the
school's refusal is sanctioned by law. Sec. 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools considers
The school manifested that while the investigation was going on, the intervenors-faculty members were
academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations vs as valid grounds for refusing re-
teaching and it was only after the investigation, that the recommendations of the Committee were adopted
enrollment of students. The opposite view would do violence to the academic freedom enjoyed by the
by the school and the latter moved for the dismissal of the case for having become moot and academic.
school and enshrined under the Constitution. More specifically, academic freedom is defined by the Court
Otherwise stated, respondent school has fully complied with its duties under the temporary mandatory
as follows:
injunction (Rollo, pp. 830- 832).

This institutional academic freedom includes not only the freedom of professionally
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is hereby DISMISSED, but in the light of compassionate equity,
qualified persons to inquire, discover, publish and teach the truth as they see it in the
students Who were, in view of the absence of academic deficiencies, scheduled to graduate during the
field of their competence subject to no control or authority except of rational methods
school year when this petition was filed, should be allowed to re-enroll and to graduate in due time. No
by which truths and conclusions are sought and established in their disciplines, but
pronouncement as to costs.
also the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its ms and objectives, and
how best to attain them the grant being to institutions of higher learning-free from
outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare SO ORDERED.
calls for some restraint. (Tangonan vs. Paño, supra).
Yap, C.J., Melencio-Herrera and Padilla, JJ., concur. Sarmiento, J., dissents an a separate opinion.
It is well settled that by reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from the handling of
specific matters falling under their respective jurisdictions, the Court ordinarily accords respect if not
finality to factual findings of administrative tribunals, unless the factual findings are not supported by
evidence; where the findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or collusion; where the procedure which led
to the factual findings is irregular; when palpable errors are committed; or when a grave abuse of
discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is manifest. (Ateneo de Manila University vs. Court of Appeals,
145 SCRA 106 (1986); citing: International Hardwood and Veneer Co. of the Philippines vs. Leonardo,
11 7 SCRA 967; Baguio Country Club Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 118 SCRA
557; Sichangco vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 94 SCRA 61 and Eusebio vs. Sociedad Agricola de
Balarin, 16 SCRA 569).

A careful scrutiny of the Report and Recommendation of the Special Investigating Committee shows it
does not fall under any of the above exceptions. On the contrary, it is readily apparent that the
investigation conducted was fair, open, exhaustive and adequate.

Accordingly, there appears to be no cogent reason to disturb the finding of said committee and as
manifested by the respondents, the report of said committee has virtually rendered this petition moot and
academic.

Alcuaz v. PSBA 4

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi