Ateneo de Manila University vs. Hon.

Judge Ignacio Capulong

[222 SCRA 644; GR. 99327; 27 May 1993]

Romeo, J.

Facts:

On February 8, 9 and 10, 1991, the Aquila Legis, a fraternity organized in the Ateneo Law School, held its
initiation rites for students interested in joining its ranks. As a result in such initiation rites, Leonardo “Lennie” H.
Villa, a first year student of said university, died of serious physical injuries at the Chinese General Hospital on
February 10, 1991. Acting upon the incident, petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillio created a Joint Administration-
Faculty-Student Investigating Committee which was tasked to investigate and submit a report within three days
on the circumstances surrounding the death of Villa. The said notice also required the respondent students to
submit written statements within two days from receipt. Although the said students received a copy of the notice,
they failed to file a reply which prompted petitioner school to hold them in preventive suspension. After receiving
the written

statements and hearing the testimonies of several witnesses, the Joint Administration-Faculty- Student Investigating
Committee found a prima facie case against respondent students for violating Rule 3 of the
Law School Catalogue entitled “Discipline” which prohibits participation in any hazing activities. However, in
view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal, the Boad left the
imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. Accordingly, Fr. Bernas imposed the penalty of
dismissal on all respondent students. Respondent students then filed for a temporary restraining order (TRO)
with the Regional Trial Court of Makati citing their current status as enrolled students of the university. The
TRO was granted along with another TRO enjoining Petitioner University from dismissing the respondent
students Albas and Mendoza. This was requested to be stricken out by the respondents and argued that the
creation of the Special Board was totally unrelated to the srcinal petition which alleged lack of due process.
This was granted and reinstatement of the students was ordered.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a denial of due process against the respondent students

Held:

No. There was no denial of due process, more particularly procedural due process. The Deal of the Ateneo
Law School notified and required respondent students to submit their written statements of the incident.
Instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested through their counsel, copies of the
charges. The nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled out in petitioners’ notices. The
elements of notice and hearing were present in the case at bar. Although the respondent students argue that
petitioners were not in a position to fine the instant petition under Rule 65 considering that they failed to file a
motion for reconsideration first before the trial court, effectively bypassing the latter and the Court of Appeals,
it is of accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies is when the case
involves a question of law, as in the case at bar where the issue is whether or not the respondent students
have been afforded procedural due process before being dismissed from the university.

Moreover, minimum standards are set in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions as
observed in the case at bench. Such standards do not follow the stricter rules observed in courts of law.
Thus, such requirements may suffice the proper administrative proceedings:

(1) The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;

(2) That they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of cousin, 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 designation by the
school authorities to head and decide the case.