“Academic”

25. Admu vs Capulong, G.R. No. 99327 May 27, 1993

Facts:

On February 8, 9, and 10 of 1991, a fraternity in Ateneo Law School named Aquila

Legis conducted its initiation rites upon neophytes. Unfortunately, one neophyte died as
a result thereof and one was hospitalized due to serious physical injuries. In a resolution
dated March 9, 1991, the Disciplinary Board formed by Ateneo found seven students
guilty of violating Rule 3 of the Rules on Discipline. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, then president of
Ateneo, on the basis of the findings, ordered the expulsion of the seven students.
However, on May 17, 1991, Judge Ignacio Capulong of the Makati RTC, upon the
students’ petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus, ordered Ateneo to reverse its
decision and reinstate the said students.

Issue (1):

Whether or not the students were denied procedural due process when ADMU
issued an order dismissing such students.

Ruling (1):

No, the students were NOT denied procedural due process.

In Alcuaz vs PSBA, an administrative proceeding conducted to investigate

students' participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a
judicial proceeding.

In this case, 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. Granting that they were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said
to detract from the observance of due process, for disciplinary cases involving
students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination.

Issue (2):

Whether ADMU has competence to issue an order dismissing such students

pursuant to its rules.

Ruling (2):

Yes, ADMU has competence to issue an order dismissing such students pursuant
to its rules.
 In Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, it was held that admission to an institution
of higher learning is discretionary upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part
of the student rather than a right.

In Yap Chin Fah v. Court of Appeals that: "The maintenance of a morally conducive
and orderly educational environment will be seriously imperiled if, under the
circumstances of this case, Grace Christian is forced to admit petitioner's children and to
reintegrate them to the student body." Thus, the decision of petitioner university to expel
them is but congruent with the gravity of their misdeeds

In Malabanan v. Ramento.it was held that there must be such a congruence

between the offense committed and the sanction imposed.

In this case, the Aquila Legis Fraternity conducted hazing activities; that
respondent students were present at the hazing as auxiliaries, and that as a result of the
hazing, Leonardo Villa died from serious physical injuries, while Bienvenido Marquez was
hospitalized. In light of the vicious acts of respondent students upon those whom ironically
they would claim as "brothers" after the initiation rites, how can we countenance the
imposition of such nominal penalties as reprimand or even suspension? We, therefore,
affirm petitioners' imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon respondent students.

Notes:

“Academic Freedom” on the part of the school includes:

a. freedom to determine who may teach;

b. freedom to determine what may be taught;
c. freedom to determine how it shall be taught; and
d. freedom to determine who may be admitted to study.

It is accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of

remedies is when the case involves a question of law, as in this case, where the issue is
whether or not respondent students have been afforded procedural due process prior to
their dismissal from petitioner university.

education must ultimately be religious — not in the sense that the founders or
charter members of the institution are sectarian or profess a religious ideology. Rather, a
religious education, as the renowned philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said, is "an
education which inculcates duty and reverence."