UP Board of Regents v CA, G.R. No.

134625, August 31, 1999

Facts: Private respondent Ms. Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine. Private

respondent was resolved with her doctorates degree on the ground that her
dissertation was plagiarized. Private respondent filed a petition for
mandamus which was dismissed by the RTC. The Court of Appeals reversed
the RTC’s decision.

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of
mandamus and ordering petitioners to restore doctoral degree.

Ruling: YES. Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board

or person to do the act required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from
the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled,
there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. In University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan,
this Court ruled that the writ was not available to restrain U.P. from the
exercise of its academic freedom. In that case, a student who was found
guilty of dishonesty and ordered suspended for one year by the Board of
Regents, filed a petition for mandamus and obtained from the lower court a
temporary restraining order stopping U.P. from carrying out the order of
suspension.