Joyce Anne B.

Bobiles
MASocStEd 211
Alcuaz, et al. vs. Philippine School of Business
Administration, Quezon City Branch (PSBA), et al.,
[G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988]

Facts: The petitioners are all bona fide students of Philippine School Business of
Administration or PSBA in Quezon City and the respondents are the PSBA Administration which
includes Juan D. Lim, President and Chairman of the Board of PSBA; Benjamin P. Paulino, Vice
President for Admission and Registration of PSBA, Q.C.; Ruben Estrella, Officer-in-Charge; and
Ramon Agapay, Director of the Office of Student Affairs of PSBA, Q.C. and Romeo Rafer, Chief
Security of PSBA, Q.C.

On March 22, 1986, the students of PSBA and the respondents agreed on certain matters
which would govern their activities within the school.

Despite their having an agreement, the petitioners still want to have a dialogue. One of their
requests was to have a new agreement. This was not allowed by the school which resulted in
mass assemblies and barricades at the school entrance. "Subsequently dialogues proved futile."
On October 8, 1986 the PSBA administration sent a letter to the petitioners giving 3 days to explain
why the penalty should not be imposed and/or conspiring with others in the commission of
tumultuous and anarchic acts which was answered by the counsel for the students in a reply letter.

During the regular enrollment period, petitioners and other students similarly situated were
allegedly blacklisted and denied admission for the second semester of school year 1986-1987. On
October 28,1986 the President of the Student Council filed a complaint with the Director of the
MECS against the PSBA for barring the enrollment of the Student Council Officers and student
leaders. (Annex "F" Rollo, p. 30). Simultaneously on the same date, the student council wrote the
President, Board of Trustees, requesting for a written statement of the school's decision regarding
their enrollment (Rollo, p. 31). Another demand letter was made by Counsel for the students Atty.
Alan Romulo Yap, also to the President, Board of Trustees, to enroll his clients within forty-eight
(48) hours (Rollo. p. 33). All these notwithstanding, no relief appeared to be forthcoming, hence
this petition.

Issue: Whether or not there has been deprivation of due process for petitioners-students
who have been barred from re-enrollment and for intervenors teachers whose services have been
terminated as faculty members, on account of their participation in the demonstration or protest
charged by respondents as "anarchic" rallies, and a violation of their constitutional rights of
expression and assembly.

RULING:
A student once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one semester. It is provided in
Paragraph 137 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college student registers in
a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester. Likewise, it is provided in the
Manual, that the "written contracts" required for college teachers are for 'one semester." It is thus
evident that after the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract
either with the students or with the intervening teachers. Such being the case, the charge of denial
of due process is untenable. It is a time-honored principle that contracts are respected as the law
between the contracting parties. The contract having been terminated, there is no more contract to
speak of. The school cannot be compelled to enter into another contract with said students and
teachers.
Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings
similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. Such proceedings may
be summary and cross-examination is not even an essential part thereof. Accordingly, the
minimum standards laid down by the Court to meet the demands of procedural due process are:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against
them; (2) they shall 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.

REFLECTIONS AS AN EDUCATOR:

As an educator, it is our duty to know the constitutional rights of our students and our own
constitutional rights. In any disciplinary case, it is important that the decision should be made
considering the student’s rights.