Academic Freedom
Grace De Leon, to sign Resolution No. 105 that
Manuelito Isabelo Jr., petitioner
v Perpetual Help College of Rizal and
Department of Education, Culture and Sports,
respondents
G.R. No. 103142
November 8, 1993
J. Vitug
- - - - - - - -
Doctine:
Academic Freedom. Court cited Garcia v Loyola
School of Technology, Reitereated in Tangonan
v Pano, where: admission to an institution of
higher learning is discretionary upon the school
and that such an admission is a mere privilege,
rather than a right, on the part of the student.
While the court ordinarily would not delve into
the exercise of sound judgment, we will not,
however, hesitate to act when we perceive
taints of arbitrariness in the process.
Like any other right, however, academic
freedom has never been meant to be an
unabridged license. It is a privilege that assumes
a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly. An
equally telling precept is a long recognized
mandate, so well expressed in Article 19 of the
Civil Code, that every "person must, in the
exercise of his rights and in the performance of
his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith."
Facts:
Manuelito Isabelo is enrolled at PHCR with a
degree in Bachelor of Science in Criminology.
August 1990, he was elected as the student
council PRO, until September 1991, he was the
holdover PRO and acting Secretary.
May 8, 1991, he was invited by the university
officials. Prior to this meeting, he was asked by
the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Dr.
would implement, among other things, a 20%
tuition fee increase for the school year 1991-
1992. Manuelito refused to sign the resolution;
instead he asked for a 2-week period to take
the matter up with fellow officers. In this
meeting, the student council presented to PHCR
a 9-point proposal. With an assurance that the
request of the student council would be
considered favorably, the petitioner finally
signed Resolution No. 105.
August 6, 1991, PHCR announced that its
application for increase in tuition fees and other
school charges for SY 1991-1992, then the
student council filed a motion for
reconsideration with DECS.
28 August 1991, addressed to the President of
PHCR, advised that the "collection of the
increase (should) be held in abeyance pending
the resolution of (the) matter.
04 September 1991, PHCR circulated a memo
that the petitioner was dropped from its list of
students for his (1) non compliance of CMT
requirements, (2) no NCEE during his admission
as Criminilogy student, (3) has not submitted
official admission credential and (4) void
declaration of CMT subjects. The following
morning, he’s no longer allowed to enter the
school premises.
October 15, 1991, DECS issued a statement to
PHCR allowing a list of students to continue
attending their classes to protect their interest
and of the school, and be allowed to take
examinations pending final resolution of the
case. PHCR did not comply with the directive,
hence this writ of Mandamus, questioning
PHCR’s act of voiding his enrollment.
On June 23, 1992, the Court issued a
preliminary injunction ordering and directing
PHCR to readmit petitioner, which was
prohibited by PHCR for motion for clarification s
they need factual assessment by the
administration of the school.

The petitioner claims that the real reason why

PHCR has voided his enrollment as a senior
graduating student had been because of his
active participation in opposing PHCR's
application for tuition fee increase with the
DECS.

The private respondent, on the other hand,

invokes "academic freedom" in dropping the
petitioner from its roll of students. It argues
that the petitioner has only been allowed to
enroll "conditionally" during the first semester
of school year 1991-92 pending the completion
of his remedial classes in CMT, in which he
failed.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner has enough rights
to be readmitted to PHCR and be granted a writ
of Mandamus.

Ruling:

Court would not dig into the grounds of

Academic Freedom, but would do otherwise if
the execution of such is based on unreasonable
autocracy. DECS on the other hand, did the right
thing to do to grant the petition, and in this
case, enlightenment was achieved as to why the
petitioner was expelled.

For a writ to issue, petitioners should have a

clear legal right to the thing demanded, and
there should be an imperative duty on the part
of respondents to perform the act sought to be
mandated.

WHEREFORE, this case is hereby REMANDED to

the department of Education, Culture, and
Sports for its expeditious determination on the
unresolved administrative issues raised in the
instant petition. No costs.