UP VS LIGOT-TELAN CASE DIGEST

FACTS:

U.P. Board of Regents issued a Resolution establishing the STFAP (Socialized Tuition Fee
and Assistance Program), popularly known as Iskolar ng Bayan. All students are entitled to
apply for STFAP benefits. Applicants are required to accomplish a questionnaire and at the
end the application form, the student applicant, as well as his parent, signs a sworn
statement – University may send a fact-finding team to visit my home/residence to verify
the veracity of the information

Ramon P. Nadal, a student enrolled in the College of Law, availed of STFAP. A team
conducted a home investigation at the residence of Nadal in Quezon City and found
discrepancies between the report and Nadal’s application form. Villanueva (head of the
office of scholarship) wrote Nadal informing him that he had failed to declare, not only the
fact that he had a 1977 Corolla car which was owned by his brother but also the income of
his mother who was supporting his brothers. He reclassified him to Bracket 9 (from Bracket
4), retroactive to June 1989, unless he could submit “proofs to the contrary.” Nadal was
required “to pay back the equivalent amount of full school fees”.

Because of the discrepancies between Nadal’s application form and the certification, the U.P.
charged Nadal before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) that he willfully withheld and
did not declare a car and the income of his mother which acts of willfully withholding
information is tantamount to acts of dishonesty in relation to his studies

SDT rendered a decision exculpating Nadal of the charge of deliberately withholding in his
STFAP application form information that he was maintaining a Toyota Corolla car, but
finding him guilty of deliberately withholding information about the income of his mother.
SDT imposed upon Nadal the penalty of expulsion from the University and required him to
reimburse all STFAP benefits he had received but if he does not voluntarily make
reimbursement, it shall be “effected by the University thru outside legal action.” SDT
decision elevated to the Executive Committee of U.P. Diliman for review which affirmed the
decision of the SDT; whereupon, Nadal appealed to the Board of Regents (BOR). BOR
affirmed the decision of the SDT; the penalty was modified “from Expulsion to One Year-
Suspension. Nadal filed a MR of the BOR decision (guilty).

Nadal asked President Abueva not to issue any press release regarding the case and filed
with the RTC of Quezon City a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and prayer
for a TRO against President Abueva and the BOR. The lower court ruled that they are
temporarily restrained. Dispensing with the filing of a motion for reconsideration, the
petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance
of an injunction or temporary restraining order

ALTERNATE FACTS:

The dispute arose from the implementation of the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program
(STFAP) by the University of the Philippines (UP), aimed at democratizing admission and providing
financial assistance to deserving students. Ramon P. Nadal, a law student, applied for STFAP benefits for
the school year 1989-90. A fact-finding team discovered discrepancies in Nadal's application, particularly
his failure to declare a car and his mother's income from the United States. Consequently, Nadal was
charged with dishonesty and was expelled by the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). The decision was
affirmed by the UP Executive Committee and later modified by the Board of Regents (BOR) to a one-year
suspension. Nadal filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction in the Regional Trial Court,
which issued a writ of preliminary injunction, restraining UP from implementing the suspension. UP then
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.

Issue:

1. Was Ramon P. Nadal denied due process in the administrative disciplinary proceedings against him?

2. Did the respondent judge gravely abuse her discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction,
thereby preventing the BOR from implementing the one-year suspension penalty on Nadal?

Ruling:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that Ramon P. Nadal was not denied due process in the administrative
disciplinary proceedings.

2. The Supreme Court found that the respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing the writ
of preliminary injunction