Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=30514:g-r-no-89317-may-20,-1990-ariel-non,-et-al-v-sancho-dames-ii,-et-al&amp;catid=1263&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:24:22+00:00

Document:
ARIEL NON, REX MAGANA, ALVIN AGURA, NORMANDY OCCIANO, JORGE DAYAON, LOURDES BANARES, BARTOLOME IBASCO, EMMANUEL BARBA, SONNY MORENO, GIOVANI PALMA, JOSELITO VILLALON, LUIS SANTOS, and DANIEL TORRES, Petitioners, v. HON. SANCHO DAMES II, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of 5th Regional Trial Court, Br. 38, Daet, Camarines Norte; and MABINI COLLEGES, INC., represented by its president ROMULO ADEVA and by the chairman of the Board of Trustees, JUSTO LUKBAN, 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.
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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and the fact that the ruling in the Alcuaz v. PSBA is exactly on the point at issue in this case but affirming the authority of the school regarding admission of students, save as a matter of compassionate equity — when any of the petitioners would, at the least, qualify for re-enrolment, this petition is hereby DISMISSED.
Perhaps many will agree with the critical comment of Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., and that really there must be a better way of treating students and teachers than the manner ruled (not suggested) by the Supreme Court, the Termination of Contract at the end of the semester, that is.
But applicable rule in this case is that enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sophia Alcuaz, Et. Al. v. Philippine School of Business Administration, Quezon City Branch (PSBA), Et Al., G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988; that of the termination at the end of the semester, reason for the critical comments of Joaquin G. Bernas, and Doods Santos, who both do not agree with the ruling.
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.
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.
9.	I will not release false or unauthorized announcement which tend to cause confusion or disrupt the normal appreciation of the college.
Moreover, a clear legal right must first be established for a petition for mandamus to prosper (Sec. 3, Rule 65). It being a mere privilege and not a legal right for a student to be enrolled or re-enrolled, respondent Mabini College is free to admit or not admit the petitioners for re-enrollment in view of the academic freedom enjoyed by the school in accordance with the Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Garcia v. Faculty [Admission Committee] (G.R. No. 40779, November 28, 1975) and Tangonon v. Pano, Et. Al. (L-45157, June 27, 1985).
WHEREFORE, premises and jurisprudence considered, and for lack of merit, the motion for reconsideration of the order of this Court dated August 8, 1988 is hereby DENIED.
Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction.
The case was originally assigned to the Second Division of the Court, which resolved on April 10, 1989 to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for proper determination and disposition. The Court of Appeals ordered respondents to comment on the petition and set the application for issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for hearing. After considering the comment and hearing the injunction application, the Court of Appeals resolved on May 22, 1989 to certify the case back to the Supreme Court considering that only pure questions of law were raised.
The case was assigned to the Third Division of the Court, which then transferred it to the Court en banc on August 21, 1989 considering that the issues raised are jurisdictional. On September 14, 1989, the Court en banc accepted the case and required respondents to comment.
The issues having been joined, the case was deemed submitted.
In Alcuaz, the Second Division of the Court dismissed the petition filed by the students, who were barred from re-enrolling after they led mass assemblies and put up barricades, but it added that "in the light of compassionate equity, students who were, in view of the absence of academic deficiencies, scheduled to graduate during the school year when this petition was filed, should be allowed to re-enroll and to graduate in due time." [At 161 SCRA 22.] Mr. Justice Sarmiento dissented from the majority opinion.
In conclusion, We wish to reiterate that while We value the right of students to complete their education in the school or university of their choice, and while We fully respect their right to resort to rallies and demonstrations for the redress of their grievances and as part of their freedom of speech and their right to assemble, still such rallies, demonstrations, and assemblies must always be conducted peacefully, and without resort to intimidation, coercion, or violence. Academic freedom in all its forms, demands the full display of discipline. To hold otherwise would be to subvert freedom into degenerate license.
Initially, the case at bar must be put in the proper perspective. This is not a simple case of a school refusing readmission or re-enrollment of returning students. Undisputed is the fact that the refusal to readmit or re-enroll petitioners was decided upon and implemented by school authorities as a reaction to student mass actions directed against the school. Petitioners are students of respondent school who, after leading and participating in student protests, were denied readmission or re-enrollment for the next semester. This is a case that focuses on the right to speech and assembly as exercised by students vis-a-vis the right of school officials to discipline them.
Students should not be denied their constitutional and statutory right to education, and there is such denial when students are expelled or barred from enrollment for the exercise of their right to free speech and peaceable assembly and or subjected to disciplinary action without abiding with the requirements of due process. Also, it is understandable for student leaders to let loose extremely critical and, at times, vitriolic language against school authorities during a student rally.
1.	The Student Does Not Shed His Constitutionally Protected Rights at the Schoolgate.
2.	To prevent the Insular Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public official, from freely exercising its or his duties or the due execution of any judicial or administrative order.
The Court found the penalty imposed on the students too severe and reduced it to a one-week suspension.
4.	The academic freedom enjoyed by "institutions of higher learning" includes the right to set academic standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for the expulsion of students. Once it has done so, however, that standard should be followed meticulously. It cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. If it does so, then there is a legitimate grievance by the students thus prejudiced, their right to the equal protection clause being disregarded. [At p. 711].
In Arreza v. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, G.R. No. 62297, June 19, 1985, 137 SCRA 94, a case arising from almost the same facts as those in Malabanan, the Court rejected "the infliction of the highly-disproportionate penalty of denial of enrollment and the consequent failure of senior students to graduate, if in the exercise of the cognate rights of free speech and peaceable assembly, improper conduct could be attributed to them." [At p. 98].
In Guzman v. National University, G.R. No. 68288, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 699, respondent school was directed to allow the petitioning students to re-enroll or otherwise continue with their respective courses, without prejudice to any disciplinary proceedings that may be conducted in connection with their participation in the protests that led to the stoppage of classes.
2.	Permissible Limitations on Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights Within the School.
8.	It does not follow, however, that petitioners can be totally absolved for the events that transpired. Admittedly, there was a violation of the terms of the permit. The rally was held at a place other than that specified, in the second floor lobby, rather than the basketball court, of the VMAS building of the University. Moreover, it was continued longer than the period allowed. According to the decision of respondent Ramento, the "concerted activity [referring to such assembly] went on until 5:30 p.m." Private respondents could thus, take disciplinary action. .. [At pp. 370-371].
. . . There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. [At pp. 706-707].
Moreover, the penalty imposed must be proportionate to the offense committed. As stated in Malabanan," [i]f the concept of proportionality between the offense committed and sanction imposed is not followed, an element of arbitrariness intrudes." [At p. 371].
4.	The Nature of the Contract Between a School and its Student.
The Court, in Alcuaz, anchored its decision on the "termination of contract" theory. But it must be repeatedly emphasized that the contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational institutions [See Art. XIV, secs. 1-2, 4(1)].
137.	When a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire school year for elementary and secondary courses, and for the entire semester for collegiate courses. A student who transfers or otherwise withdraws, in writing, within two weeks after the beginning of classes and who has already paid the pertinent tuition and other school fees in full or for any length of time longer than one month may be charged ten per cent of the total amount due for the term if he withdraws within the first week of classes, or twenty per cent if within the second week of classes, regardless of whether or not he has actually attended classes. The student may be charged all the school fees in full if he withdraws anytime after the second week of classes. However, if the transfer or withdrawal is due to a justifiable reason, the student shall be charged the pertinent fees only up to and including the last month of attendance.
Every student has the right to enroll in any school, college or university upon meeting its specific requirement and reasonable regulation: Provided, that except in the case of academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulation, the student is presumed to be qualified for enrollment for the entire period he is expected to complete his course without prejudice to his right to transfer.
2.	The right to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations.
5.	Academic Freedom Not a Ground for Denying Students’ Rights.
Respondent judge, in his order dated February 24, 1989, stated that "respondent Mabini College is free to admit or not admit the petitioners for re-enrollment in view of the academic freedom enjoyed by the school" [Rollo, p. 16]. To support this conclusion, he cited the cases of Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, G.R. No. L-40779, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 277, and Tangonan v. Pano, G.R. No. L-45157, June 27, 1985, 137 SCRA 245, where the Court emphasized the institutions’ discretion on the admission and enrollment of students as a major component of the academic freedom guaranteed to institutions of higher learning.
These cases involve different facts and issues. In Garcia, the issue was whether a female lay student has a clear legal right to compel a seminary for the priesthood to admit her for theological studies leading to a degree. In Tangonan, the issue was whether a nursing student, who was admitted on probation and who has failed in her nursing subjects, may compel her school to readmit her for enrollment.
Moreover, respondent judge loses sight of the Court’s unequivocal statement in Villar that the right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for otherwise there will be a violation of their right to equal protection [At p. 711].
6.	Capitol Medical Center and Licup.
In support of the action taken by respondent judge, private respondents cite the recent cases of Capitol Medical Center, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82499, October 13, 1989, and Licup v. University of San Carlos, G.R. No. 85839, October 19, 1989, both decided by the First Division of the Court.
We find the issues raised and resolved in these two decisions dissimilar from the issues in the present case.
In Capitol Medical Center, the Court upheld the decision of the school authorities to close down the school because of problems emanating from a labor dispute between the school and its faculty. The Court ruled that the students had no clear legal right to demand the reopening of the school.
The Court finds no cogent basis for the protestations of petitioners that they were deprived of due process of law and that the investigation conducted was far from impartial and fair. On the contrary, what appears from the record is that the charges against petitioners were adequately established in an appropriate investigation. The imputation of bias and partiality is not supported by the record . . .
While it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue their education, the USC as an educational institution is also entitled to pursue its academic freedom and in the process has the concommitant right to see to it that this freedom is not jeopardized.
c)	Their breach of discipline, if any, was not serious.
g)	Respondent school is their choice institution near their places of residence which they can afford to pay for tertiary education, of which they have already lost one-and-a-half school-years - in itself punishment enough. [Rollo, p. 86].
Clearly, the five (5) students who did not incur failing marks, namely, Normandy Occiano, Lourdes Banares, Bartolome Ibasco, Sonny Moreno and Giovani Palma, were refused re-enrollment without just cause and, hence, should be allowed to re-enroll.
On the other hand, it does not appear that the petitioners were afforded due process, in the manner expressed in Guzman, before they were refused re-enrollment. In fact, it would appear from the pleadings that the decision to refuse them re-enrollment because of failing grades was a mere afterthought. It is not denied that what incurred the ire of the school authorities was the student mass actions conducted in February 1988 and which were led and/or participated in by petitioners. Certainly, excluding students because of failing grades when the cause for the action taken against them undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not only is a denial of due process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair play.
Moreover, of the eight (8) students with failing grades, some have only one or two failures, namely, Rex Magana, Elvin Agura, Emmanuel Barba, and Luis Santos. Certainly, their failures cannot be considered marked academic deficiency within the context of the Court’s decision in Villar.
Then, as to the students who incurred several failing grades, namely, Ariel Non, Joselito Villalon, George (Jorge) Dayaon, and Daniel Torres, it is not clear from respondents’ enumeration whether the failures were incurred in only one semester or through the course of several semesters of study in the school. Neither are the academic standards of respondent school, from which we can gauge whether or not these students are academically deficient, alleged by respondents. Thus, while the prerogative of schools to set academic standards is recognized, we cannot affirm respondent school’s action as to petitioners Non, Villalon, Dayaon and Torres because of insufficient information.
With regard to petitioner Emmanuel Barba who respondents claim has enrolled in Ago Foundation, such fact alone, if true, will not bar him from seeking readmission in respondent school.
But this matter of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of administrative sanctions have become moot and academic. 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 which necessarily resulted from the heated legal battle here, in the Court of Appeals and before the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of respondent judge dated August 8, 1988 and February 24, 1989 are hereby ANNULLED. Respondent Mabini College is ORDERED to readmit and to allow the re-enrollment of petitioners, if they are still so minded, without prejudice to its taking the appropriate action as to petitioners Ariel Non, Joselito Villalon, George (Jorge) Dayaon and Daniel Torres, if it is shown by their records (Form 137) that they have failed to satisfy the school’s prescribed academic standards.
Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Paras, Gancayco, Bidin, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.
Like Mr. Justice Teodoro R. Padilla, I had concurred in the majority opinion in Alcuaz, Et Al., v. Philippine School of Business Administration, Et Al., G.R. No. 76353, 2 May 1988, 161 SCRA 7.
As to the power of discipline, my view still is that schools should retain that prerogative, with the caveat that the penalty they impose be proportionate to the offense committed.
However, after carefully considering the decision penned by Madame Justice Cortes in the case at bar, I am inclined to agree with her that "the contract between the school and students is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education . . ." (p. 15, Decision).
It should be stressed, however, that this right of students to enroll is not designed to leave schools completely helpless to deny enrollment or re-enrollment. For, par. 107 itself of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools still recognizes the right of the school to refuse enrollment in case of academic deficiency or violation of disciplinary regulations of the school.
Students, as all persons, enjoy freedom of speech and assembly, right granted by the Constitution, and one nobody may abridge. The opinion of the majority reaffirms this fundamental principle.
The "termination of contract" theory espoused by Alcuaz v. Philippine School of Business Administration 2 has indeed allowed schools to circumvent the guarantees of the Constitution by denying "erring" students of their right to enroll, when the single "error" committed by the students was to participate in political activities. As I said, our students have as much right to disagree — whether against school policies or government programs, and whether in or out of the school compound — and no prior or subsequent penalty may be inflicted on account of such acts alone.
As far as discipline is concerned, this Court has laid down guidelines for proper school action. In Malabanan v. Ramento, as in the present case, we held that the punishment must fit the crime, and in Guzman v. National University, 5 we ruled that before any penalty may be imposed, the students concerned should be allowed to be heard by themselves or representatives. In all cases, the courts should be wary — and the school authorities must themselves convince the judge — that punishment meted out is due to a real injury done to the school and not for the fact that the students had simply expressed their constitutional right to disagree.
As to failing grades, I agree that, as we held in Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines, 6 academic deficiency is a legal basis for, among other things, expulsion. However, as Villar warned, educational institutions must set standards "to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for the expulsion of students," 7 and that such standards "should be followed meticulously," 8 and that they "cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students who exercise their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech." 9 What this decision makes plain is that the school must pre-set the ground rules for either suspension or expulsion of students by reason of falling marks which must be observed with reasonable uniformity. The school can not use it to spring surprises on students with failing grades, who also happen to be politically active in the campus, after the authorities had long tolerated their poor performance. In this case, our courts must also exercise caution that, as "disruption of classes", resort to "failing grades" is not done to evade the constitutional mandates.
I take note of the increasing practice by school heads to simply bar students from enrollment for a host of excuses as a result of their exercise of constitutional rights. I am gratified that the majority has put an end to this practice.
I concur fully with Mme. Justice Irene Cortes’ ponencia.
*	Mr. Chief Justice Fernan, Mr. Justice Narvasa, Mme. Justice Herrera, Mr. Justice Cruz, Mr. Justice Feliciano, Mr. Justice Sarmiento, and Mme. Justice Cortes.
1.	See Alcuaz v. Philippine School of Business Administration, No. 76353, May 2, 1988, 161 SCRA 7, Sarmiento, J., Dissenting.
3.	Malabanan v. Ramento, No. 62270, May 21, 1984, 129 SCRA 359.
4.	See US v. Apurado, 7 Phil. 422 (1907).
5.	No. 68288, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 699.
6.	No. 69198, April 17, 1985, 135 SCRA 706.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.