1
Guzman vs. National University,
G.R. No. 68288, July 11, 1986, 142 SCRA 699
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.
Facts:
Petitioners Diosdado Guzman, Ulysses Urbiztondo and Ariel
Ramacula, students of respondent National University, have come to this
Court to seek relief from what they describe as their school's "continued and
persistent refusal to allow them to enrol." In their petition "for extraordinary
legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction" dated August 7, 1984, they alleged that they were denied due to
the fact that they were active participation in peaceful mass actions within
the premises of the University.
The respondents on the other hand claimed that the petitioners’
failure to enroll for the first semester of the school year 1984-1985 is due to
their own fault and not because of their alleged exercise of their
constitutional and human rights. That as regards to Guzman, his academic
showing was poor due to his activities in leading boycotts of classes. That
Guzman “is facing criminal charges for malicious mischief before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila in connection with the destruction of
properties of respondent University. The petitioners have “failures in their
records, and are not of good scholastic standing.”
Held:
Immediately apparent from a reading of respondents' comment and
memorandum is the fact that they had never conducted proceedings of any
sort to determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or
participated "in activities within the university premises, conducted without
prior permit from school authorities, that disturbed or disrupted classes
therein" 3 or perpetrated acts of "vandalism, coercion and intimidation,
slander, noise barrage and other acts showing disdain for and defiance of
University authority." 4 Parenthetically, the pendency of a civil case for
damages and a criminal case for malicious mischief against petitioner
Guzman, cannot, without more, furnish sufficient warrant for his expulsion or
debarment from re-enrollment. Also apparent is the omission of respondents
to cite this Court to any duly published rule of theirs by which students may
be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing.
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 shag 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.
THE PETITION WAS GRANTED AND THE RESPONDENTS ARE DIRECTED TO
ALLOW THE PETITIONERS TO RE-ENROLL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ANY
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

Non v. Dames
[GR 89317, 20 May 1990]
Facts: 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, students in
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. They thus
filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Daet (Branch 38) seeking their
readmission or re-enrollment to the school, but the trial court dismissed the
petition in an order dated 8 August 1988. A motion for reconsideration was
filed, but this was denied by the trial court on 24 February 1989; stating that
they 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. In addition, for the same semester, they
duly signed pledges "to abide and comply with all the rules and regulations
laid down by competent authorities in the College Department or School in
which I am enrolled." Hence, the affected students filed the petition for
certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction before the
Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether the school exclude students because of failing grades when
the cause for the action taken against them relates to possible breaches of
discipline.
Held: 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
2
regulatory powers over all educational institutions. The authority for schools
to refuse enrollment to a student on the ground that his contract, which has a
term of one semester, has already expired, cannot be justified. Still,
institutions' discretion on the admission and enrollment of students as a
major component of the academic freedom guaranteed to institutions of
higher learning. The right of an institution of higher learning to set academic
standards, however, 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. Thus, an institution
of learning has a contractual obligation to afford its students a fair
opportunity to complete the course they seek to pursue. However, when a
student commits a serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the
required academic standard, he forfeits his contractual right; and the court
should not review the discretion of university authorities. 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.
Further, the failures in one or two subjects by some cannot be considered
marked academic deficiency. Neither can the academic deficiency be gauged
from the academic standards of the school due to insufficiency of
information. Herein, the students could have been subjected to disciplinary
proceedings in connection with the mass actions, but the penalty that could
have been imposed must be commensurate to the offense committed and it
must be imposed only after the requirements of procedural due process have
been complied with (Paragraph 145, Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools). But this matter of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of
administrative sanctions have become moot and academic; as the students
have been refused readmission or re-enrollment and have been effectively
excluded from for 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 resulted in the disruption of
 3

classes. To still subject them to disciplinary proceedings would serve no useful day after the expiration of the temporary restraining order, Dean del Castillo
purpose and would only further aggravate the strained relations between the created a Special Board to investigate the charges of hazing against
students and the officials of the school which necessarily resulted from the respondent students Abas and Mendoza. This was requested to be stricken
heated legal battle. out by the respondents and

ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. HON. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULONG 222 argued that the creation of the Special Board was totally unrelated to the
SCRA 644; G.R. 99327; 27 MAY 1993 original petition which alleged lack of due process. This was granted and
reinstatement of the students was ordered.
Facts: Leonardo H. Villa, a first year law student of Petitioner University, died
of serious physical injuries at Chinese General Hospital after the initiation Issue: Was there denial of due process against the respondent students.
rites of Aquila Legis. Bienvenido Marquez was also hospitalized at the Capitol
Held: There was no denial of due process, more particularly procedural due
Medical Center. Petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint
process. The Dean of the Ateneo Law School, notified and required
Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee which was tasked to
respondent students to submit their written statement on the incident.
investigate and submit a report within 72 hours on the circumstances
Instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested through their
surrounding the death of Lennie Villa. Said notice also required respondent
counsel, copies of the charges. The nature and cause of the accusation were
students to submit their written statements within twenty-four (24) hours
adequately spelled out in petitioners' notices. Present is the twin elements of
from receipt. Although respondent students received a copy of the written
notice and hearing.
notice, they failed to file a reply. In the
The Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary
meantime, they were placed on preventive suspension. The Investigating
sanctions in academic institutions, such as petitioner university herein, thus:
Committee found a prima facie case against respondent students for violation
of Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline." (1) the students must be informed in WRITING of the nature and cause of
any accusation against them;
Respondent students were then required to file their written answers to the
formal charge. Petitioner Dean created a Disciplinary Board to hear the (2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with
charges against respondent students. The Board found respondent students the assistance of counsel, if desired:
guilty of violating Rules on Discipline which prohibits participation in hazing
activities. However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of (3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them
the Board on the penalty of dismissal, the Board left the imposition of the
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
penalty to the University Administration. Accordingly, Fr. Bernas imposed the
penalty of dismissal on all respondent students. Respondent students filed (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or
with RTC Makati a TRO since they are currently enrolled. This was granted. A official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

It cannot seriously be asserted that the above requirements were not met.
When, in view of the death of Leonardo Villa, petitioner Cynthia del Castillo,
as Dean of the Ateneo Law School, notified and required respondent students
on February 11, 1991 to submit within twenty-four hours their written
statement on the incident, the records show that instead of filing a reply,
respondent students requested through their counsel, copies of the charges.
While of the students mentioned in the February 11, 1991 notice duly
submitted written statements, the others failed to do so. Thus, the latter were
granted an extension of up to February 18, 1991 to file their statements .
Indubitably, the nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled
out in petitioners' notices dated February 14 and 20, 1991. 30 It is to be noted
that the February 20, 1991 letter which quoted Rule No. 3 of its Rules of
Discipline as contained in the Ateneo Law School Catalogue was addressed
individually to respondent students. Petitioners' notices/letters dated
February 11, February 14 and 20 clearly show that respondent students were
given ample opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf and to answer the
charges leveled against them.
The requisite assistance of counsel was met when, from the very start of the
investigations before the Joint Administration Faculty- Student Committee, the
law firm of Gonzales Batiler and Bilog and Associates put in its appearance
and filed pleadings in behalf of respondent students.
Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not
accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written statements which
became the basis of petitioners' February 14, 1991 order, they were denied
procedural due process. Granting that they were denied such opportunity,
the same may not be said to detract from the observance of due process, for
4
disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to
cross examination. An ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING conducted to
investigate students' participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed
with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. A closer examination of the March
2, 1991 hearing which characterized the rules on the investigation as being
summary in nature and that respondent students have no righ t to examine
affiants-neophytes, reveals that this is but a reiteration of our previous ruling
in Alcuaz . Respondent students' contention that the investigating committee
failed to consider their evidence is far from the truth because the February
14, 1992 ordered clearly states that it was reached only after receiving the
written statements and hearing the testimonies of several witnesses.
Similarly, the Disciplinary Board's resolution dated March 10, 1991 was
preceded by a hearing on March 2, 1991 wherein respondent students were
summoned to answer clarificatory questions.
UP vs. Ligot-Telan
227 SCRA 342 G.R. No. 110280 October 12, 1993
Facts: In an effort to make the University of the Philippines (U.P.) truly the
University of the People, U.P. administration conceptualized and
implemented the socialized scheme of tuition fee payments through
the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program (STFAP), popularly known
as the "Iskolar ng Bayan" program. After broad consultations with the
various university constituencies, U.P. President Jose V.
Abueva, the U.P. Board of Regents issued on April 28, 1988 a Resolution
establishing the STFAP. A year later, it was granted official recognition when
the Congress of the Philippines allocated a portion of

the National Budget for the implementation of the program. In the interest
of democratizing admission to the State University, all students are entitled to
apply for STFAP benefits which include reduction in
fees, living and book subsidies and student assistantships which give
undergraduate students the opportunity to earn P12.00 per hour by working
for the University. Applicants are required to accomplish a questionnaire
where, among others, they state the amount and source of the annual
income of the
family, their real and personal properties and special circumstances from
which the University may evaluate their financial status and need on the basis
of which they are categorized into brackets. To further insure the integrity of
the program, a random sampling scheme of verification of data indicated in
a student's application form is undertaken. Among those who applied for
STFAP benefits for School
Year 1989-90 was Ramon P. Nadal, a student enrolled in the College of Law. A
team composed of Arsenio L. Dona and Jose Carlo Manalo conducted a
home investigation at the residence of Nadal. Ms. Cristeta Packing, Nadal's
aunt, was interviewed and the team submitted a home visit report.
Consolacion Urbino, Scholarship Affairs Officer II, found discrepancies
between the report and Nadal's application form. Forthwith, she and Bella
M. Villanueva, head of the Office of Scholarships and Student Services,
presented the matter to the Diliman Committee on Scholarships and
Financial Assistance. In compliance with the said Committee's directive, Bella
Villanueva wrote Nadal informing him that the investigation showed that he
had failed to declare, not only the fact that he had been maintaining a 1977
Corolla car which was owned by his brother but also the income of his mother
who was supporting his brothers Antonio and Federico. Nadal was likewise
informed that the Diliman Committee had reclassified him to Bracket 9 (from
Bracket 4), retroactive to June 1989, unless he could
5
submit "proofs to the contrary." Nadal was required "to pay back the
equivalent amount of full school fees" with "interest based on current
commercial rates." Failure to settle his account would mean the
suspension of his registration privileges and the withholding of clearance
and transcript of records. He was also warned that his case might be
referred to the Student Disciplinary Tribunal for further
investigation. commercial rates." Failure to settle his account would mean the
suspension of his registration privileges and the withholding of clearance and
transcript of records. He was also warned that his case might be referred to
the Student Disciplinary Tribunal for further investigation. Nadal issued a
certification stating, among other things, that his mother migrated to the
United States in 1981 but because her residency status had not yet been
legalized, she had not been able to find a "stable, regular, well-paying
employment." U.P. charged Nadal before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal
(SDT) that he committed acts which find him guilty of willfully and
deliberately withholding information about the income of his mother, who is
living abroad and that he was maintaining a Toyota Corolla car. As such, the
SDT imposed upon Nadal the penalty of expulsion from the University and
required him to reimburse
all STFAP benefits he had received but if he does not voluntarily make
reimbursement, it shall be "effected” by the University thru outside legal
action. The SDT decision was thereafter automatically elevated to the
Executive Committee of U.P. Diliman for review pursuant to Sec. 20 of the
U.P. Rules on Student Conduct and Discipline. Board of regents modified the
penalty from Expulsion to One Year- Suspension, effective immediately,
plus reimbursement of all benefits received from the STFAP, with legal
interest. However the BOR also decided against giving Nadal, a certification of
good moral character. Nadal forthwith filed a motion for reconsideration of
the BOR decision, in the next BOR meeting Regent Antonio T. Carpio raised

the "material importance" of the truth of Nadal's claim that earlier, he was a
beneficiary of a scholarship and financial aid from the Ateneo de Manila
University (AdeMU). Learning that the "certification issued by the AdeMU
that it had not given Nadal financial aid while he was a student there was
made through a telephone call," Regent Carpio declared that there was
as yet "no direct evidence in the records to substantiate the charge."
According to Carpio, if it should be disclosed that Nadal falsely stated that he
received such financial aid, it would be a clear case of gross and material
misrepresentation that would even warrant the penalty of expulsion. Hence,
he cast a conditional vote that would depend on the verification of Nadal's
claim on the matter. U.P. President and concurrently Regent Jose V.
Abueva countered by stating that "a decision should not be anchored
solely on one piece of information which he considered irrelevant, and which
would ignore the whole pattern of the respondent's dishonesty and
deception from 1989 which had been established in the investigation and
the reviews."In the morning of March 29, 1993, the AdeMU issued a
certification to the effect that Nadal was indeed a recipient of a scholarship
grant from 1979 to 1983. That evening, the BOR met again at a special
meeting, according to Regent Carpio, in executive session, the BOR
found Nadal "guilty." However, on April 22, 1993, Nadal filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a petition for mandamus with preliminary
injunction and prayer for a temporary restraining order against President
Abueva, the BOR, Oscar M. Alfonso, Cesar A. Buenaventura, Armand V.
Fabella and Olivia C. Caoili.
Issue: Whether or not the Board of Regent violated Nadal's right to due
process when it rendered a decision finding Nadal guilty of the charges
against him" during the March 29, 1993 meeting.
6
Held: With respect to the March 29, 1993 meeting, respondent considers
the same as "unquestionably void for lack of due process" inasmuch as he
was not sent a notice of said meeting, that imposition of sanctions on
students requires "observance of procedural due process," the phrase
obviously referring to the sending of notice of the meeting. However BOR
ruled that in any event it is gross error to equate due process in the instant
case with the sending of notice of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting to
respondent. University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings
of individuals whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board.
This is not exclusive of students whose disciplinary cases have been appealed
to the Board of Regents as the final review body. At no time did
respondent complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of the
regular and special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation.
Counsel for Nadal charged before the lower court that Nadal was not given
due process in the March 29 meeting because the ground upon which he was
again convicted was not the same as the original charge. Obviously, he was
referring to the basis of the conditional votes on March 28. Whether or not
Nadal was telling the truth when he claimed
that he received a scholarship grant from the AdeMU. However, Regent
Carpio himself testified that the charge considered was "exactly the same
charge" of withholding information on the income of
Nadal's mother. It should be stressed that the reason why Regent Carpio
requested a verification of Nadal's claim that he was a scholar at the AdeMU
was that Regent Carpio was not "morally convinced" yet as to the guilt of
Nadal. In other words, he sought additional insights into the character of
Nadal through the information that would be obtained from the AdeMU.
 7

The Court in this regard find such information to be irrelevant and a mere
superfluity. In his July, 12, 1991 certification aforementioned,

Nadal admitted, although inconsistently, that his mother was a "TNT" who
could not find a "stable, regular, well-paying employment" but that she was
supporting the education of his brothers with the help of another son. The
court constitutes this as a sufficient admission that Nadal withheld
information on the income, however measly and irregular, of his mother.
The court also sighted that respondent aspires to join the ranks of the
professionals who would uphold truth at all costs so that justice may prevail.
In those who exhibit duplicity in their student days, one spots the shady
character who is bound to sow the seeds of chicanery in the practice of his
profession. With this the court ruled that it sufficiently shown that
respondent has committed an act of dishonesty in withholding vital
information in connection with his application for STFAP benefits, all in
blatant violation of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and
Discipline of petitioner University, the latter's inherent power and authority
to impose disciplinary sanction may be invoked and rightfully exercised.
Therefore deciding that the BOR did not violate Nadal’s right of due process.
The lower court is hereby ordered to DISMISS the petition for
mandamus.