GUZMAN VS. NU (G.R. NO.

L-68288)

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 process due to the fact that they were active participants 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.”

Issue: 

WON the petitioners were denied due process.

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. 

The school had violated the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools that “no penalty shall be
imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in the manual and/or in the school rules and
regulations as duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall have been conducted.

There are 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.

CRESENCIO MARTINEZ vs. LEOPODO B. GIRONELLA

CASE DIGEST
(LEGAL ETHICS: DUTY OF A JUDGE)

EN BANC
[ A.M. Nos. R-278-RTJ & R-309-RTJ, May 30, 1986 ]
CRESENCIO MARTINEZ, petitioner,
vs.
LEOPODO B. GIRONELLA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch II, respondent.

FACTS:

In Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra, Branch II, Cresencio Martinez,
as principal, and Viernes Duclan and Arnold Bayongan, as accessories after the fact, were charged
with the murder of one Alfredo Batoon. As the first two were not apprehended, trial proceeded with
respect to the third, Arnold Bayongan. In the decision of the respondent judge, Arnold Bayongan was
ACQUITTED to the effect, based on the wordings of the decision, that the “crime was committed by
Cresencio Martinez”, the petitioner.
Subsequent to the acquittal of Bayongan, petitioner surrendered to the authorities and later
was arraigned before the same CFI. After having pleaded "not guilty" to the charge, and before the
prosecution started to present its evidence, counsel for accused Cresencio Martinez moved that the
trial Judge inhibit himself from hearing the case on its merits on the grounds "(1) that the respondent
had the chance to pass upon the issue and has formed an opinion as to who committed the crime of
murder; (2) that it would not be fair that he would sit, hear and pass judgment; and (3) that the
respondent is no longer impartial," and prayed that the case be transferred to Branch I of the same
Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent judge should be allowed to decide petitioner’s case.

HELD: NO.

A Judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision, but also render it in such
a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the
judge's integrity. 2 While we grant respondent's capacity to render a just and impartial decision, his
statement in the decision acquitting Arnold Bayongan to the effect that the "crime was committed by
Cresencio Martinez" renders it impossible for respondent to be free from the suspicion that in
deciding petitioner's case, respondent will be biased and prejudiced. We therefore hold that under
these circumstances petitioner has the right to have his case decided by another Judge.

WHEREFORE, the petition for prohibition is granted. Respondent is ordered to transmit the
records of Criminal Case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Abra to Branch IV of the Court of
First Instance of Ilocos Sur, and the Judge presiding the said court will decide the same.
 ZAMBALES CHROMITE MINING CO vs. COURT OF APPEALS
GR. NO. L-49711 November 7, 19792nd Division Aquino

FACTS:

Zambales Chromite Mining Corp., Inc. (ZCM, Inc.) sought to be declared the rightful and prior locators
and possessors of 69 mining claims in Zambales. ZCM filed their claims with then Director of Mines
Benjamin Gozon. ZCM, Inc., were asserting their claim against the mining claims of Martinez and
Pabilona. Director Gozon decided in favor of Martinez and Pabilona and dismissed the claims of
ZCM, Inc., ruling that ZCM, Inc. did not discover any mineral nor located any mining claims in
accordance with law. ZCM appealed the decision before the Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources. During the pendency of the appeal, Director gozon was appointed Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources. Gozon in his capacity as Secretary affirmed his decision as
Director of Mines and dismissed the appeal of ZCM, Inc.ZCM then appealed before the CFI of
Zambales. The CFI affirmed the decision of Gozon.

RULING OF CFI:

The disqualification of a judge to review his own decision or ruling (Sec. 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court)
does not apply to administrative bodies; that there is no provision in the Mining Law, disqualifying the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources from deciding an appeal from a case which he had
decided as Director of Mines; that delicadeza is not a ground for disqualification. ZCM appealed the
case to the CA.

RULING OF CA:

CA after realizing that Gozon cannot affirm his own decision remanded the case to the Minister of
Natural Resources.

ISSUE/S:

Whether or not Gozon can review and validly affirm his earlier decision w/o disturbing due process?

HELD:

Secretary Gozon cannot review his decision as Director of Mines. A Secretary of Agriculture and
Natural Resources reviewing his own decision as Director of Mines is a mockery of administrative
justice.

RATIO:

In order that the review of the decision of a subordinate officer might not turn out to be a farce the
reviewing officer must perforce be other than the officer whose decision is under review; otherwise,
there could be no different view or there would be no real review of the case. The decision of the
reviewing officer would be a biased view; inevitably, it would be the same view since being human, he
would not admit that he was mistaken in his first view of the case.