UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS, CHANCELLOR ROGER POSADAS,

DR. EMERLINDA ROMAN, DEAN CONSUELO PAZ, DR. ISAGANI MEDINA, DR. MARIA
SERENA DIOKNO, DR. OLIVIA CAOILI, DR. FRANCISCO NEMENZO II, DEAN PACIFICO
AGABIN, CARMELITA GUNO, and MARICHU LAMBINO, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE, respondents.

G.R. No. 134625           August 31, 1999

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:

Private respondent Ms. Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine, a citizen of India enrolled
doctoral program in UP CSSP Diliman QC. She is ready for oral defense with selected panel
members ,Drs. E. Arsenio Manuel, Serafin Quiason, Sri Skandarajah, Noel Teodoro, and Isagani
Medina, the last included as the dean’s representative. Even though Dr. Medina noticed that there
were portions of her dissertation that was lifted from different sources without proper
acknowledgement, she was still allowed to continue to with her oral defense. 

Four (4) out five (5) give her a passing mark with condition to incorporate the suggestion
made by the panel members. Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form. Dr. Teodoro also noted that
a revision should be submitted.

On March 24, 1993, The CSSP College Faculty Assembly approved her graduation pending
the final revised copies of her dissertation. Private respondent submitted the supposedly final
revised copies although petitioners maintained that suggestions were not incorporated. She left a
copy for Dr. Teodoro and Dr. Medina And did not wait for their approval relying to the Dean Paz
remarks during previous meeting that a majority vote was sufficient for her to pass. The supposedly
revised copies were later disapproved by Dr. Teodoro and Dr.Medina .Private respondent was
disappointed with the administration.

She charged Dr. Diokno and Medina with maliciously working for the disapproval of
her dissertation and further warned Dean Paz against encouraging perfidious act against her.
Dean Paz attempts to exclude the private respondent in the graduating list in a letter addressed to
the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Dr. Milagros Ibe), pending for clarification of her
charges against panel members and accusations relating to her dissertation. Unfortunately the
letter did not reach on time and the respondent was allowed to graduate. Dean Paz wrote a letter
that she would not be granted an academic clearance unless she substantiated the
accusations. In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, Dr. Medina Formally charged private
respondent with plagiarism and recommended for the withdrawal of her doctorate degree.
Dean Paz formed an ad-hoc committee (Ventura Committee) to investigate and recommend to
Chancellor Dr. Roman to withdraw her doctorate degree. 

Private respondent was informed of the charges in a letter. Ventura Committee finds at 90
instances or portions of thesis lifted from other sources with no proper acknowledgement.
After it was unanimously approved and endorsed from the CSSP and Univ. Council the
recommendation for withdrawal was endorsed to Board of Regents who deferred its actions to study
further for legal implications. Private respondent was provided with a copy of findings and in return
she also submitted her written explanation. Another meeting was scheduled to discuss her answer.
Zafaralla Committee was also created and recommends private respondent for withdrawal of
her degree after establishing the facts the there were massive lifting from published sources
and the private respondent also admits herself of being guilty of plagiarism.

On the basis of the report and recommendation of the University Council, the Board of
Regents send a letter to inform private respondent that it was resolved by majority to withdraw
your doctorates degree. On August 10, 1995, private respondent then filed a petition for
mandamus with a prayer for a writ of  preliminary mandatory injunction and damages to RTC QC.
She alleged that petitioners had unlawfully withdrawn her degree without justification and
without affording her procedural due process. She prayed that petitioners be ordered to restore
her degree and to pay her P500, 000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and P1, 500,000.00 as
compensation for lost earnings. RTC dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals Reversed the
lower court’s decision and ordered to restore her doctorates degree.

ISSUE: 

A.) WON the university may be compelled through mandamus

B.) WON the university can rightfully withdraw the degree from the private respondent.

HELD: 

A.) NO. 

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 vs. Ligot-Telan, 227 SCRA 342

(1993), 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.

In setting aside the TRO and ordering the lower court to dismiss the student’s
petition, this Court said: [T]he lower court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of
preliminary injunction of May 29, 1993.

The issuance of the said writ was based on the lower court’s finding that the
implementation of the disciplinary sanction of suspension on Nadal “would work injustice to
 the petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his course, and consequently, in getting a
decent and good paying job.” Sadly, such a ruling considers only the situation of Nadal
without taking into account the circumstances, clearly of his own making, which led him into
such a predicament. More importantly, it has completely disregarded the overriding issue of
academic freedom which provides more than ample justification for the imposition of a
disciplinary sanction upon an erring student of an institution of higher learning.

From the foregoing arguments, it is clear that the lower court should have
restrained itself from assuming jurisdiction over the petition filed by the
Nadal. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases, a showing of a clear and certain
right on the part of the petitioner being required. It is of no avail against an official or
government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment.

B.) YES.

Art. XIV, §5 (2) of the Constitution provides that "academic freedom shall be enjoyed
in all institutions of higher learning."

As pointed out by this Court in Garcia vs. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola

School of Theology, it is a freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning" which is thus
given "a wide sphere of authority certainly extending to the choice of the students." If such
institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it, it
certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being
its graduates.

Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained

through fraud, a university has the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction
it has thus conferred. This freedom of a university does not terminate upon the
"graduation" of a student, as the Court of Appeals held. For it is precisely the "graduation" of
such a student that is in question. It is noteworthy that the investigation of private
respondent's case began before her graduation. If she was able to join the graduation
ceremonies on April 24, 1993, it was because of too many investigations conducted before
the Board of Regents finally decided she should not have been allowed to graduate.

Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the highest governing body of
the University of the Philippines. It has the power confer degrees upon the
recommendation of the University Council. If follows that if the conferment of a degree is
founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the
observance of due process, to withdraw what it has granted without violating a student's
rights. An institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers that an academic
degree it has conferred is not rightfully deserved. Nothing can be more objectionable than
bestowing a university's highest academic degree upon an individual who has obtained the
same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic excellence is the university's
concern. It should be empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take measures to
protect itself from serious threats to its integrity.

While it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue their education, the
USC as an educational institution is also entitled to pursue its academic freedom and
in the process has the concomitant right to see to it that this freedom is not
jeopardized.

In the case at bar, the Board of Regents determined, after due investigation
conducted by a committee composed of faculty members from different U.P. units, that
private respondent committed no less than ninety (90) instances of intellectual
dishonesty in her dissertation. The Board of Regents' decision to withdraw private
respondent's doctorate was based on documents on record including her admission
that she committed the offense.

On the other hand, private respondent was afforded the opportunity to be heard
and explain her side but failed to refute the charges of plagiarism against her. Her only
claim is that her responses to the charges against her were not considered by the Board of
Regents before it rendered its decision. However, this claim was not proven. Accordingly, we
must presume regularity in the performance of official duties in the absence of proof
to the contrary.