G.R. No.

89317 May 20, 1990

ARIEL NON, REX MAGANA, ALVIN AGURA, NORMANDY OCCIANO, JORGE DAYAON,
LOURDES BANARES, BAROLOME IBASCO, EMMANUEL BARBA, SONNY MORENO,
GIOVANI !ALMA, JOSELIO VILLALON, LUIS SANOS, a"# DANIEL ORRES, petitioners,
vs.
$ON. SANC$O DANES II, %" &%' (a)a(%*y a' *&+ !,+'%#%"- J.#-+ o/ 0*& R+-%o"a1 ,%a1 Co.,*,
B,. 38, Da+*, Ca2a,%"+' No,*+3 a"# MABINI COLLEGES, INC., ,+),+'+"*+# 4y %*' ),+'%#+"*
ROMULO ADEVA a"# 4y *&+ (&a%,2a" o/ *&+ Boa,# o/ ,.'*++', JUSO LU5BAN,
respondents.
Antonio A. Ayo Jr. and Soliman M. Santos, Jr., for petitioners
Pedro A. Venida Agustin A. Ferrer and Gil F. Echaro for private respondents.
CORES, J.:
Petitioners urge the Court en anc to review and reverse the doctrine laid down in Alcua!, et al. v.
Philippine School of "usiness Administration, et al., G.R. No. 76353, May , !"##, !6! $CR% 7, to
the e&&ect that a college student, once ad'itted (y the school, is considered enrolled only &or one
se'ester and, hence, 'ay (e re&used read'ission a&ter the se'ester is over, as the contract
(etween the student and the school is dee'ed ter'inated.
Petitioners, students in private respondent Ma(ini Colleges, )nc. in *aet, Ca'arines Norte, were not
allowed to re+enroll (y the school &or the acade'ic year !"##+!"#" &or leading or participating in
student 'ass actions against the school in the preceding se'ester. ,he su(-ect o& the protests is
not, however, 'ade clear in the pleadings.
Petitioners &iled a petition in the court a #uo see.ing their read'ission or re+enroll'ent to the school,
(ut the trial court dis'issed the petition in an order dated %ugust #, !"##/ the dispositive portion o&
which reads0
123R345R3, pre'ises considered, and the &act that the ruling in the Alcua! vs.
PS"A is e6actly on the point at issue in this case (ut the authority o& the school
regarding ad'ission o& students, save as a 'atter o& co'passionate e7uity 8 when
any o& the petitioners would, at the least, 7uali&y &or re+enroll'ent, this petition is
here(y *)$M)$$3*.
$5 5R*3R3*. 9$ollo, p. !+%.:
% 'otion &or reconsideration was &iled, (ut this was denied (y the trial court on 4e(ruary ;, !"#" in
this wise0
Perhaps 'any will agree with the critical co''ent o& <oa7uin G. =ernas $.<., and
that really there 'ust (e a (etter way o& treating students and teachers than the
'anner ruled >not suggested? (y the $upre'e Court, the ,er'ination o& Contract at
the end o& the se'ester, that is.
=ut applica(le rule in the case is that enunciated (y the $upre'e Court in the case
o& Sophia Alcua!, et al. vs. Philippine School of "usiness Administration, @ueAon
City =ranch >P$=%?, et al., G.R. No. 76353, May , !"##/ that o& the ter'ination at
the end o& the se'ester, reason &or the critical co''ents o& <oa7uin G. =ernas and
*oods $antos, who (oth do not agree with the ruling.
PetitionersB clai' o& lac. o& due process cannot prosper in view o& their &ailure to
speci&ically deny respondentBs a&&ir'ative de&enses that Cthey were given all the
chances to air their grievances on 4e(ruary ", !D, !6, and !#, !"##, and also on
4e(ruary , !"## during which they were represented (y %tty. <ose E. Eapa.C and
that on 4e(ruary , !"##, the date o& the resu'ption o& classes at Ma(ini College,
petitioners continued their rally pic.eting, even though without any renewal per'it,
physically coercing students not to attend their classes, there(y disrupting the
scheduled classes and depriving a great 'a-ority o& students o& their right to (e
present in their classes.
%gainst this (ac.drop, it 'ust (e noted that the petitioners waived their privilege to
(e ad'itted &or re+enroll'ent with respondent college when they adopted, signed,
and used its enroll'ent &or' &or the &irst se'ester o& school year !"##+#". $aid &or'
speci&ically states that0
,he Ma(ini College reserves the right to deny ad'ission o& students
whose scholarship and attendance are unsatis&actory and to re7uire
withdrawal o& students whose conduct discredits the institution andFor
whose activities unduly disrupts or inter&ere with the e&&icient
operation o& the college. $tudents, there&ore, are re7uired to (ehave
in accord with the Ma(ini College code o& conduct and discipline.
)n addition, &or the sa'e se'ester, petitioners duly signed pledges which a'ong
others uni&or'ly reads0
)n consideration o& 'y ad'ission to the Ma(ini College and o& 'y
privileges as student o& this institution, ) here(y pledgeF pro'ise
under oath to a(ide and co'ply with all the rules and regulations laid
down (y co'petent authorities in the College *epart'ent or $chool
in which ) a' enrolled. $peci&ically0
666 666 666
3. ) will respect 'y %l'a Matter the Ma(ini College, which ) represent
and see to it that ) conduct 'ysel& in such a 'anner that the college
wig not (e put to a (ad light/
666 666 666
". ) will not release &alse or unauthoriAed announce'ent which tend
to cause con&usion or disrupt the nor'al appreciation o& the college.
Moreover, a clear legal right 'ust &irst (e esta(lished &or a petition &or 'anda'us to
prosper >$ec. 3, Rule 65?. )t (eing a 'ere privilege and not a legal right &or a student
to (e enrolled or reenrolled, respondent Ma(ini College is &ree to ad'it or not ad'it
the petitioners &or re+enroll'ent in view o& the acade'ic &reedo' en-oyed (y the
school in accordance with the $upre'e Court rulings in the cases o& Garcia vs.
Faculty %Admission &ommittee' >G.R. No. ;D77", Nove'(er #, !"75? and
(angonon vs. Pano, et al. >E+;5!57, <une 7, !"#5?.
123R345R3, pre'ises and -urisprudence considered, and &or lac. o& 'erit, the
'otion &or reconsideration o& the order o& this Court dated %ugust #, !"## is here(y
*3N)3*.
$5 5R*3R3*. 9$ollo pp. !5+!6.:
2ence, petitioners &iled the instant petition &or certiorari with prayer &or preli'inary 'andatory
in-unction.
,he case was originally assigned to the $econd *ivision o& the Court, which resolved on %pril !D,
!"#" to re&er the case to the Court o& %ppeals &or proper deter'ination and disposition. ,he Court o&
%ppeals ordered respondents to co''ent on the petition and set the application &or issuance o& a
writ o& preli'inary 'andatory in-unction &or hearing. %&ter considering the co''ent and hearing the
in-unction application, the Court o& %ppeals resolved on May , !"#" to certi&y the case (ac. to the
$upre'e Court considering that only pure 7uestions o& law were raised.
,he case was assigned to the ,hird *ivision o& the Court, which then trans&erred it to the Court en
anc on %ugust !, !"#" considering that the issues raised are -urisdictional. 5n $epte'(er !;,
!"#", the Court en anc accepted the case and re7uired respondents to co''ent.
Respondents &iled their co''ent on Nove'(er !3, !"#". Petitioners were re7uired to reply. %s
reply, they &iled a pleading entitled CCounter+Co''ent,C to which respondents &iled a re-oinder
entitled CReply to Counter+Co''ent ,o this petitioners &iled a CRe-oinder to Reply.C
,he issues having (een -oined, the case was dee'ed su('itted.
%t the heart o& the controversy is the doctrine encapsuled in the &ollowing e6cerpt &ro' Alcua!0
)t is (eyond dispute that a student once ad'itted (y the school is considered enrolled
&or one se'ester. )t is provided in Paragraph !37 Manual o& Regulations &or Private
$chools, that when a college student registers in a school, it is understood that he is
enrolling &or the entire se'ester. Ei.ewise, it is provided in the Manual, that the
Cwritten contractsC re7uired &or college teachers are &or Cone se'ester.C )t is thus
evident that after the close of the first semester, the PS"A*+& no longer has any
e,isting contract either -ith the students or -ith the intervening teachers. $uch (eing
the case, the charge o& denial o& due process is untena(le. )t is a ti'e+honored
principle that contracts are respected as the law (etween the contracting parties
>2enson vs. )nter'ediate %ppellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 7;56, 4e(ruary !", !"#7,
citing0 Castro vs. Court o& %ppeals, "" $CR% 7/ 3scano vs. Court o& %ppeals, !DD
$CR% !"7?. (he contract having een terminated, there is no more contract to spea.
of. (he school cannot e compelled to enter into another contract -ith said students
and teachers. C,he courts, (e they the original trial court or the appellate court, have
no power to 'a.e contracts &or the parties.B >2enson vs. )nter'ediate %ppellate
Court, et al., supra?. 9%t !6! $CR% !7+!#/ 3'phasis supplied.:
)n Alcua!, the $econd *ivision o& the Court dis'issed the petition &iled (y the students, who were
(arred &ro' re+enrolling a&ter they led 'ass asse'(lies and put up (arricades, (ut it added that Cin
the light o& co'passionate e7uity, students who were, in view o& the a(sence o& acade'ic
de&iciencies, scheduled to graduate during the school year when this petition was &iled, should (e
allowed to re+enroll and to graduate in due ti'e.C 9%t !6! $CR% .: Mr. <ustice $ar'iento dissented
&ro' the 'a-ority opinion.
% 'otion &or reconsideration was &iled (y the dis'issed teachers in Alcua!. ,he students did not
'ove &or reconsideration. ,he Court en anc, to which the case had (een trans&erred, denied the
'otion &or reconsideration in a Resolution dated $epte'(er ", !"#", (ut added as an oiter
dictum0
)n conclusion, 1e wish to reiterate that while 1e value the right o& students to
co'plete their education in the school or university o& their choice, and while 1e &ully
respect their right to resort to rallies and de'onstrations &or the redress o& their
grievances and as part o& their &reedo' o& speech and their right to asse'(le, still
such rallies, de'onstrations, and asse'(lies 'ust always (e conducted peace&ully,
and without resort to inti'idation, coercion, or violence. %cade'ic &reedo' in all its
&or's, de'ands the &ull display o& discipline. ,o hold otherwise would (e to su(vert
&reedo' into degenerate license.
,he 'a-orityBs &ailure to e6pressly repudiate the Cter'ination o& contractC doctrine enunciated in the
decision provo.ed several dissents on that issue. %lthough seven >7? 'e'(ers o& the Court 6
disagreed with the $econd *ivisionBs dis'issal o& the students petition, a de&initive ruling on the
issue could not have (een 'ade (ecause no ti'ely 'otion &or reconsideration was &iled (y the
students. >%s stated a(ove, the 'otion &or reconsideration was &iled (y the dis'issed teachers.?
=e that as it 'ay, the reassess'ent o& the doctrine laid down in Alcua!, inso&ar as it allowed schools
to (ar the read'ission or re+enroll'ent o& students on the ground o& ter'ination o& contract, shall (e
'ade in this case where the issue is s7uarely raised (y petitioners 9Petition, p. ;/ $ollo, p. 5:.
)nitially, the case at (ar 'ust (e put in the proper perspective. ,his is not a si'ple case o& a school
re&using read'ission or re+enroll'ent o& returning students. Gndisputed is the &act that the re&usal to
read'it or re+enroll petitioners was decided upon and i'ple'ented (y school authorities as a
reaction to student 'ass actions directed against the school. Petitioners are students o& respondent
school who, a&ter leading and participating in student protests, were denied read'ission or re+
enroll'ent &or the ne6t se'ester. ,his is a case that &ocuses on the right to speech and asse'(ly as
e6ercised (y students vis*a*vis the right o& school o&&icials to discipline the'.
,hus, although respondent -udge (elieved hi'sel& (ound (y the ruling in Alcua! 95rder dated %ugust
#, !"##/ $ollo, pp. !!+%:, he actually viewed the issue as a con&lict (etween studentsB rights and
the schoolBs power to discipline the', to wit0
$tudents should not (e denied their constitutional and statutory right to education,
and there is such denial when students are e6pelled or (arred &ro' enroll'ent &or the
e6ercise o& their right to &ree speech and peacea(le asse'(ly andFor su(-ected to
disciplinary action without a(iding with the re7uire'ents o& due process. %lso, it is
understanda(le &or student leaders to let loose e6tre'ely critical and, at ti'es,
vitriolic language against school authorities during a student rally.
=ut the right o& students is no license and not without li'it . . . 95rder o& 4e(ruary ;,
!"#"/ $ollo, p. !3.:
!. (he Student /oes 0ot Shed 1is &onstitutionally Protected $ights at the Schoolgate.
Central to the de'ocratic tradition which we cherish is the recognition and protection o& the rights o&
&ree speech and asse'(ly. ,hus, our Constitution provides0
$ec. ;. No law shall (e passed a(ridging the &reedo' o& speech, o& e6pression, or o&
the press, or the right o& the people peacea(ly to asse'(le and petition the
govern'ent &or redress o& grievances. 9%rt. ))).:
,his guarantee is not peculiar to the !"#7 Constitution. % si'ilar provision was &ound in the !"73
Constitution, as a'ended 9%rt. H), sec. ":, the !"35 Constitution, as a'ended 9%rt. ))), sec. #!, the
Philippine %utono'y %ct ><ones Eaw? 9$ec. 3, para. !3:, and the Philippine =ill o& !"D 9$ec. !5,
para. !3:. ,hus, as early as !"D7, the Court in People v. Apurado, 7 Phil. ;, upheld the right to
speech and asse'(ly to overturn a conviction &or sedition. )t said0
$ection 5 o& the %ct No. " is as &ollows0
%ll persons who rise pu(licly and tu'ultuously in order to attain (y
&orce or outside o& legal 'ethods any o& the &ollowing o(-ects are
guilty o& sedition0
666 666 666
. ,o prevent the )nsular Govern'ent, or any provincial or 'unicipal
govern'ent or any pu(lic o&&icial, &ro' &reely e6ercising its or his
duties or the due e6ecution o& any -udicial or ad'inistrative order.
=ut this law 'ust not (e interpreted so as to a(ridge Cthe &reedo' o& speechC or Cthe
right o& the people peacea(ly to asse'(le and petition the Govern'ent &or redress o&
grievancesC guaranteed (y the e6press provisions o& section 5 o& Cthe Philippine =ill.C
666 666 666
)t is rather to (e e6pected that 'ore or less disorder will 'ar. the pu(lic asse'(ly o&
the people to protest against grievances whether real or i'aginary, (ecause on such
occasions &eeling is always wrought to a high pitch o& e6cite'ent, and the greater the
grievance and the 'ore intense the &eeling, the less per&ect, as a rule, will (e the
disciplinary control o& the leaders over their irresponsi(le &ollowers. =ut i& the
prosecution (e per'itted to seiAe upon every instance o& such disorderly conduct (y
individual 'e'(ers o& a crowd as an e6cuse to characteriAe the asse'(ly as a
seditious and tu'ultuous rising against the authorities, then the right to asse'(le
and to petition &or redress o& grievances would (eco'e a delusion and a snare and
the atte'pt to e6ercise it on the 'ost righteous occasion and in the 'ost peacea(le
'anner would e6pose all those who too. part therein to the severest and 'ost
un'erited punish'ent, i& the purposes which they sought to attain did not happen to
(e pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. )& instances o& disorderly conduct occur on
such occasions, the guilty individuals should (e sought out and punished there&or,
(ut the ut'ost discretion 'ust (e e6ercise in drawing the line (etween disorderly and
seditious conduct and (etween an essentially peacea(le asse'(ly and a tu'ultuous
uprising. 9%t pp. ;;, ;6.:
,hat the protection to the cognate rights o& speech and asse'(ly guaranteed (y the Constitution is
si'ilarly availa(le to students is well+settled in our -urisdiction. )n the leading case o& Malaanan v.
$amento, G.R. No. 67D, May !, !"#;, !" $CR% 35", the Court, spea.ing through Mr. Chie&
<ustice 4ernando in an en anc decision, declared0
666 666 666
;. Petitioners invo.e their rights to peacea(le asse'(ly and &ree speech. ,hey are
entitled to do so. ,hey en-oy li.e the rest o& the citiAens the &reedo' to e6press their
views and co''unicate their thoughts to those disposed to listen in gatherings such
as was held in this case. ,hey do not, to (orrow &ro' the opinion o& <ustice 4ortas in
(in.er v. /es Moines &ommunity School /istrict, Cshed their constitutional rights to
&reedo' o& speech or e6pression at the schoolhouse gate.C 1hile there&ore, the
authority o& educational institutions over the conduct o& students 'ust (e recogniAed,
it cannot go so &ar as to (e violative o& constitutional sa&eguards. 9%t pp. 367+36#.:
,he &acts in Malaanan are only too &a'iliar in the genre o& cases involving student 'ass actions0
. . . Petitioners were o&&icers o& the $upre'e $tudent Council o& respondent 9Gregorio
%raneta: Gniversity. ,hey sought and were granted (y the school authorities a per'it
to hold a 'eeting &ro' #0DD %.M. to !0DD P.M. on %ugust 7, !"#. Pursuant to
such per'it, along with other students, they held a general asse'(ly at the
Heterinary Medicine and %ni'al $cience >HM%$? the place indicated in such per'it,
not in the (as.et(all court as therein stated (ut at the respond &loor lo((y. %t such
gathering they 'ani&ested in vehe'ent and vigorous language their opposition to the
proposed 'erger o& the )nstitute o& %ni'al $cience with the )nstitute o& %griculture. %t
!D03D %.M., the sa'e day, they 'arched toward the Ei&e $cience (uilding and
continued their rally. )t was outside the area covered (y their per'it. ,hey continued
their de'onstration, giving utterance to language severely critical o& the Gniversity
authorities and using 'egaphones in the process. ,here was, as a result,
distur(ance o& the classes (eing held. %lso, the non+acade'ic e'ployees, within
hearing distance, stopped their wor. (ecause o& the noise created. ,hey were as.ed
to e6plain on the sa'e day why they should not (e held lia(le &or holding an illegal
asse'(ly. ,hen on $epte'(er ", !"#, they were in&or'ed through a 'e'orandu'
that they were under preventive suspension &or their &ailure to e6plain the holding o&
an illegal asse'(ly in &ront o& the Ei&e $cience =uilding. ,he validity thereo& was
challenged (y petitioners (oth (e&ore the Court o& 4irst )nstance o& RiAal in a petition
&or mandamus with da'ages against private respondents and (e&ore the Ministry o&
3ducation, Culture, and $ports. 5n 5cto(er D, !"#, respondent Ra'ento, as
*irector o& the National Capital Region, &ound petitioners guilty o& the charge o&
having violated par. !;6>c? o& the Manual &or Private $chools 'ore speci&ically their
holding o& an illegal asse'(ly which was characteriAed (y the violation o& the per'it
granted resulting in the distur(ance o& classes and oral de&a'ation. ,he penalty was
suspension &or one acade'ic year. . . . 9%t pp. 363+36;.:
,he Court &ound the penalty i'posed on the students too severe and reduced it to a one+wee.
suspension.
,he rule laid down in Malaanan was applied with e7ual &orce in three other en (anc decisions o& the
Court.
)n Villar v. (echnological )nstitute of the Philippines, G.R. No. 6"!"#, %pril !7, !"#5, !35 $CR% 7D6,
the Court reiterated that the e6ercise o& the &reedo' o& asse'(ly could not (e a (asis &or (arring
students &ro' enrolling. )t en-oined the school and its o&&icials &ro' acts o& surveillance, (lac.listing,
suspension and re&usal to re+enroll. =ut the Court allowed the non+enroll'ent o& students who clearly
incurred 'ar.ed acade'ic de&iciency, with the &ollowing caveat0
666 666 666
;. ,he acade'ic &reedo' en-oyed (y BBinstitutions o& higher learningC includes the
right to set acade'ic standards to deter'ine under what circu'stances &ailing
grades su&&ice &or the e6pulsion o& students. 5nce it has done so, however, that
standard should (e &ollowed 'eticulously. )t cannot (e utiliAed to discri'inate against
those students who e6ercise their constitutional rights to peacea(le asse'(ly and
&ree speech. )& it does so, then there is a legiti'ate grievance (y the students thus
pre-udiced, their right to the e7ual protection clause (eing disregarded. 9%t p. 7!!.:
)n Arre!a v. Gregorio Araneta 2niversity Foundation, G.R. No. 6"7, <une !", !"#5, !37 $CR% ";,
a case arising &ro' al'ost the sa'e &acts as those in Malaanan, the Court re-ected Cthe in&liction o&
the highly+ disproportionate penalty o& denial o& enroll'ent and the conse7uent &ailure o& senior
students to graduate, i& in the e6ercise o& the cognate rights o& &ree speech and peacea(le asse'(ly,
i'proper conduct could (e attri(uted to the'. 9%t p. "#:.
)n Gu!man v. 0ational 2niversity, G.R. No. 6###, <uly !!, !"#6, !; $CR% 6"", respondent school
was directed to allow the petitioning students to re+enroll or otherwise continue with their respective
courses, without pre-udice to any disciplinary proceedings that 'ay (e conducted in connection with
their participation in the protests that led to the stoppage o& classes.
. Permissile 3imitations on Student E,ercise of &onstitutional $ights 4ithin the School.
1hile the highest regard 'ust (e a&&orded the e6ercise o& the rights to &ree speech and asse'(ly,
this should not (e ta.en to 'ean that school authorities are virtually powerless to discipline students.
,his was 'ade clear (y the Court in Malaanan, when it echoed (in.er v. /es Moines &ommunity
School /istrict, 3"3 G$ 5D3, 5!;0 C=ut conduct (y the student, in class or out o& it, which &or any
reason 8 whether it ste's &ro' ti'e, place, or type o& (ehavior 8 'aterially disrupts classwor. or
involves su(stantial disorder or invasion o& the rights o& others is, o& course, not i''uniAed (y the
constitutional guarantee o& &reedo' o& speech.C
,hus, in Malaanan, the Court said0
666 666 666
#. )t does not &ollow, however, that petitioners can (e totally a(solved &or the events
that transpired. %d'ittedly, there was a violation o& the ter's o& the per'it. ,he rally
was held at a place other than that speci&ied, in the second &loor lo((y, rather than
the (as.et(all court, o& the >HM%$? (uilding o& the Gniversity. Moreover, it was
continued longer than the period allowed. %ccording to the decision o& respondent
Ra'ento, the Cconcerted activity 9re&erring to such asse'(ly went on until 503D p.'.C
Private respondents could thus, ta.e disciplinary action. . . . 9 %t pp. 37D+37!:.
=ut, as stated in Gu!man, the i'position o& disciplinary sanctions re7uires o(servance o& procedural
due process. ,hus0
. . . ,here are withal 'ini'u' standards which 'ust (e 'et to satis&y the de'ands
o& procedural due process/ and these are, that >!? the students 'ust (e in&or'ed in
writing o& the nature and cause o& any accusation against the'/ >? they shall have
the right to answer the charges against the', with the assistance o& counsel, i&
desired/ >3? they shall (e in&or'ed o& the evidence against the'/ >;? they shall have
the right to adduce evidence in their own (ehal&/ and >5? the evidence 'ust (e duly
considered (y the investigating co''ittee or o&&icial designated (y the school
authorities to hear and decide the case. 9%t pp. 7D6+7D7:.
Moreover, the penalty i'posed 'ust (e proportionate to the o&&ense co''itted. %s stated in
Malaanan, C9i:& the concept o& proportionality (etween the o&&ense co''itted and sanction i'posed
is not &ollowed, an ele'ent o& ar(itrariness intrudes.C 9%t p. 37!:.
3. &ircumventing Estalished /octrine.
Malaanan was decided (y the Court in !"#;. $ince then, student 'ass actions have escalated not
only (ecause o& political events that un&urled (ut also (ecause o& the constantly raging controversy
over increases in tuition &ees. =ut the over+eager hands o& so'e school authorities were not
e&&ectively tied down (y the ruling in Malaanan. )nstead o& suspending or e6pelling student leaders
who &ell into dis&avor with school authorities, a new variation o& the sa'e stratage' was adopted (y
the latter0 re&using the students read'ission or re+enroll'ent on grounds not related to, their alleged
'isconduct o& Cillegal asse'(lyC in leading or participating in student 'ass actions directed against
the school. ,hus, the spate o& e6pulsions or e6clusions due to Cacade'ic de&iciency.C
;. (he 0ature of the &ontract "et-een a School and its Student.
,he Court, in Alcua!, anchored its decision on the Cter'ination o& contractC theory. =ut it 'ust (e
repeatedly e'phasiAed that the contract (etween the school and the student is not an ordinary
contract. )t is i'(ued with pu(lic interest, considering the high priority given (y the Constitution to
education and the grant to the $tate o& supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational
institutions 9$ee %rt. I)H, secs. !+, ;>!?:.
Respondent school cannot -usti&y its actions (y relying on Paragraph !37 o& the Manual o&
Regulations &or Private $chools, which provides that C9w:hen a student registers in a school, it is
understood that he is enrolling . . . &or the entire se'ester &or collegiate courses,C which the Court in
Alcua! construed as authority &or schools to re&use enroll'ent to a student on the ground that his
contract, which has a ter' o& one se'ester, has already e6pired.
,he Cter'ination o& contractC theory does not even &ind support in the Manual. Paragraph !37 'erely
clari&ies that a college student enrolls &or the entire se'ester. )t serves to protect schools wherein
tuition &ees are collected and paid on an install'ent (asis, i.e. collection and pay'ent o& the
downpay'ent upon enroll'ent and the (alance (e&ore e6a'inations. ,hus, even i& a student does
not co'plete the se'ester &or which he was enrolled, (ut has stayed on &or 'ore than two wee.s,
he 'ay (e re7uired to pay his tuition &ees &or the whole se'ester (e&ore he is given his credentials
&or trans&er. ,his is the i'port o& Paragraph !37, su(su'ed under $ection H)) on ,uition and 5ther
4ees, which in its totality provides0
!37. 1hen a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling &or the
entire school year &or ele'entary and secondary courses, and &or the entire se'ester
&or collegiate courses. % student who trans&ers or otherwise withdraws, in writing,
within two wee.s a&ter the (eginning o& classes and who has already paid the
pertinent tuition and other school &ees in &ull or &or any length o& ti'e longer than one
'onth 'ay (e charged ten per cent o& the total a'ount due &or the ter' i& he
withdraws within the &irst wee. o& classes, or twenty per cent i& within the second
wee. o& classes, regardless o& whether or not he has actually attended classes. ,he
student 'ay (e charged all the school &ees in &ull i& he withdraws anyti'e a&ter the
second wee. o& classes. 2owever, i& the trans&er or withdrawal is due to a -usti&ia(le
reason, the student shall (e charged the pertinent &ees only up to and including the
last 'onth o& attendance.
Clearly, in no way 'ay Paragraph !37 (e construed to 'ean that the student shall (e enrolled &or
only one se'ester, and that a&ter that se'ester is over his re+enroll'ent is dependent solely on the
sound discretion o& the school. 5n the contrary, the Manual recogniAes the right o& the student to (e
enrolled in his course &or the entire period he is e6pected to co'plete it. ,hus, Paragraph !D7 states0
3very student has the right to enrol in any school, college or university upon 'eeting
its speci&ic re7uire'ent and reasona(le regulation0 Provided, that e6cept in the case
o& acade'ic delin7uency and violation o& disciplinary regulation, the student is
presu'ed to (e 7uali&ied &or enrol'ent &or the entire period he is e6pected to
co'plete his course without pre-udice to his right to trans&er.
,his Cpresu'ptionC has (een translated into a right in =atas Pa'(ansa =lg. 3, the C3ducation %ct
o& !"#.C $ection " o& this act provides0
$ec. ". $ights of Students in School. 8 )n addition to other rights, and su(-ect to the
li'itations prescri(ed (y law and regulations, students and pupils in all schools shall
en-oy the &ollowing rights0
666 666 666
. ,he right to &reely choose their &ield o& study su(-ect to e6isting
curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation, e6cept
in cases o& acade'ic de&iciency, or violation o& disciplinary
regulations.
666 666 666
5. Academic Freedom 0ot a Ground for /enying Students5 $ights.
Respondent -udge, in his order dated 4e(ruary ;, !"#", stated that Crespondent Ma(ini College is
&ree to ad'it or not ad'it the petitioners &or re+enroll'ent in view o& the acade'ic &reedo' en-oyed
(y the schoolC 9$ollo, p. !6:. ,o support this conclusion, he cited the cases o& Garcia v. (he Faculty
Admission &ommittee, 3oyola School of (heology, G.R. No. E+;D77", Nove'(er #, !"75, 6# $CR%
77, and (angonan v. Pano, G.R. No. E+;5!57, <une 7, !"#5, !37 $CR% ;5, where the Court
e'phasiAed the institutionsB discretion on the ad'ission and enroll'ent o& students as a 'a-or
co'ponent o& the acade'ic &reedo' guaranteed to institutions o& higher learning.
,hese cases involve di&&erent &acts and issues. )n Garcia, the issue was whether a &e'ale lay
student has a clear legal right to co'pel a se'inary &or the priesthood to ad'it her &or theological
studies leading to a degree. )n (angonan, the issue was whether a nursing student, who was
ad'itted on pro(ation and who has &ailed in her nursing su(-ects, 'ay co'pel her school to read'it
her &or enroll'ent.
Moreover, respondent -udge loses sight o& the CourtBs une7uivocal state'ent in Villar that the right o&
an institution o& higher learning to set acade'ic standards cannot (e utiliAed to discri'inate against
students who e6ercise their constitutional rights to speech and asse'(ly, &or otherwise there win (e
a violation o& their right to e7ual protection 9%t p. 7!!:
6. &apitol Medical &enter and 3icup.
)n support o& the action ta.en (y respondent -udge, private respondents cite the recent cases o&
&apitol Medical &enter, )nc. v. &ourt of Appeals, G.R. No. #;"", 5cto(er !3, !"#", and 3icup v.
2niversity of San &arlos, G.R. No. #5#3", 5cto(er !", !"#", (oth decided (y the 4irst *ivision o&
the Court.
1e &ind the issues raised and resolved in these two decisions dissi'ilar &ro' the issues in the
present case.
)n &apitol Medical &enter, the Court upheld the decision o& the school authorities to close down the
school (ecause o& pro(le's e'anating &ro' a la(or dispute (etween the school and its &aculty. ,he
Court ruled that the students had no clear legal right to de'and the reopening o& the school.
5n the other hand, in 3icup the issue resolved was whether or not the students were a&&orded
procedural due process (e&ore disciplinary action was ta.en against the'. ,hus, the Court stated0
,he Court &inds no cogent (asis &or the protestations o& petitioners that they were
deprived o& due process o& law and that the investigation conducted was &ar &ro'
i'partial and &air. 5n the contrary, what appear &ro' the record is that the charges
against petitioners were ade7uately esta(lished in an appropriate investigation. ,he
i'putation o& (ias and partiality is not supported (y the record. . . .
Moreover, 3icup, &ar &ro' adopting the Cter'ination o& contractC theory in Alcua!, i'pliedly re-ected
it, to wit0
1hile it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue their education, the
G$C as an educational institution is also entitled to pursue its acade'ic &reedo' and
in the process has the conco''itant right to see to it that this &reedo' is not
-eopardiAed.
(rue, an institution of learning has a contractual oligation to afford its students a fair
opportunity to complete the course they see. to pursue. 2owever, when a student
co''its a serious (reach o& discipline or &ails to 'aintain the re7uired acade'ic
standard, he &or&eits his contractual right/ and the court should not review the
discretion o& university authorities. >3'phasis supplied.?
7. (he )nstant &ase.
,o -usti&y the schoolBs action, respondents, in their Co''ent dated Nove'(er !, !"#", 7uoting
&ro' their answer &iled in the trial court, allege that o& the thirteen >!3? petitioners eight >#? have
incurred &ailing grades, to wit0
a? %riel Non has not only &ailed in &our >;? su(-ects (ut also &ailed to cause the
su('ission o& 4or' !37 which is a pre+re7uisite to his re+ enroll'ent and to his
continuing as a student o& Ma(ini/
(? Re6 Magana not only has &ailed in one >!? su(-ect (ut also has inco'plete grades
in &our >;? su(-ects as well as no grades in two >? su(-ects/
c? 3lvin %gura &ailed in two >? su(-ects and has three >3? inco'plete grades/
d? 3''anuel =ar(a has &ailed in one >!? su(-ect, and has to still ta.e CM, ! ! to .
2e is already enrolled at %go 4oundation/
e? <oselito Hillalon has inco'plete grades in nine >"? su(-ects/
&? Euis $antos has &ailed in one >!? su(-ect/
g? George *ayaon has &ailed in &our >;? su(-ects and has to re'ove the inco'plete
grade in one >!? su(-ect/
h? *aniel ,orres has &ailed in &ive >5? su(-ects, has to re'ove inco'plete grades in
&ive >5? 'ore o(-ects and has no grade in one >!? su(-ect. 9$ollo, p. 7".:
Petitioners have not denied this, (ut have countered this allegation as &ollows0
666 666 666
>!!? Petitioners were and are prepared to show, a'ong others, that0
a? ,hree o& the !3 o& the' were graduating. >%d'itted in the %nswer.?
(? ,heir acade'ic de&iciencies, i& any, do not warrant non+ read'ission. >,he %nswer
indicates only # o& the !3 as with de&iciencies.?
c? ,heir (reach o& discipline, i& any, was not serious.
d? ,he i'proper conduct attri(uted to the' was during the e6ercise o& the cognate
rights o& &ree speech and peacea(le asse'(ly, particularly a 4e(ruary !"## student
rally. >,he cru6 o& the 'atter, as shown even in the %nswer.?
e? ,here was no due investigation that could serve as (asis &or disciplinary action. >)n
e&&ect, ad'itted in the %nswer/ even Alcua! re7uired due process.?
&? Respondents ad'it students with worse de&iciencies 8 a clear case o&
discri'ination against petitioners &or their role in the student rally. >%n e7ual
protection 7uestion.?
g? Respondent school is their choice institution near their places o& residence which
they can a&&ord to pay &or tertiary education, o& which they have already lost one+and+
a+hal& school+years 8 in itsel& punish'ent enough. 9$ollo, p. #6:.
Clearly, the &ive >5? students who did not incur &ailing 'ar.s, na'ely, Nor'andy 5cciano, Eourdes
=anares, =artolo'e )(asco, $onny Moreno and Giovani Pal'a, were re&used re+enroll'ent without
-ust cause and, hence, should (e allowed to re+enroll.
5n the other hand, it does not appear that the petitioners were a&&orded due process, in the 'anner
e6pressed in Gu!man, (e&ore they were re&used re+enroll'ent. )n &act, it would appear &ro' the
pleadings that the decision to re&use the' re+enroll'ent (ecause o& &ailing grades was a 'ere
a&terthought. )t is not denied that what incurred the ire o& the school authorities was the student 'ass
actions conducted in 4e(ruary !"## and which were led andFor participated in (y petitioners.
Certainly, e6cluding students (ecause o& &ailing grades when the cause &or the action ta.en against
the' undenia(ly related to possi(le (reaches o& discipline not only is a denial o& due process (ut
also constitutes a violation o& the (asic tenets o& &air play.
Moreover, o& the eight >#? students with &ailing grades, so'e have only one or two &ailures, na'ely,
Re6 Magana, 3lvin %gura, 3''anuel =ar(a, and Euis $antos. Certainly, their &ailures cannot (e
considered 'ar.ed acade'ic de&iciency within the conte6t o& the CourtBs decision in Villar.
,hen, as to the students who incurred several &ailing grades, na'ely, %riel Non, <oselito Hillalon,
George ><orge? *ayaon, and *aniel ,orres, it is not clear &ro' respondentsB enu'eration whether
the &ailures were incurred in only one se'ester or through the course o& several se'esters o& study
in the school. Neither are the acade'ic standards o& respondent school, &ro' which we can gauge
whether or not these students are acade'ically de&icient, alleged (y respondents. ,hus, while the
prerogative o& schools to set acade'ic standards is recogniAed, we cannot a&&ir' respondent
schoolBs action as to petitioners Non, Hillalon, *ayaon and ,orres (ecause o& insu&&icient in&or'ation.
1ith regard to petitioner 3''anuel =ar(a who respondents clai' has enrolled in %go 4oundation,
such &act alone, i& true, will not (ar hi' &ro' see.ing read'ission in respondent school.
2owever, these should not (e ta.en to 'ean that no disciplinary action could have (een ta.en
against petitioners &or (reach o& discipline i& the &acts had so warranted. )n line with the CourtBs ruling
in Malaanan, petitioners could have (een su(-ected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with
the 4e(ruary !"## 'ass actions. =ut the penalty that could have (een i'posed 'ust (e
co''ensurate to the o&&ense co''itted and, as set &orth in Gu!man, it 'ust (e i'posed only a&ter
the re7uire'ents o& procedural due process have (een co'plied with. ,his is e6plicit &ro' the
Manual o& Regulations &or Private $chools, which provides in Paragraph !;5 that C9n:o penalty shall
(e i'posed upon any student, e6cept &or cause as de&ined in this Manual andFor in the schoolBs rules
and regulations duly pro'ulgated and only a&ter due investigation shall have (een conducted.C
=ut this 'atter o& disciplinary proceedings and the i'position o& ad'inistrative sanctions have
(eco'e 'oot and acade'ic. Petitioners, who have (een re&used read'ission or re+enroll'ent and
who have (een e&&ectively e6cluded &ro' respondent school &or &our >;? se'esters, have already
(een 'ore than su&&iciently penaliAed &or any (reach o& discipline they 'ight have co''itted when
they led and participated in the 'ass actions that, according to respondents, resulted in the
disruption o& classes. ,o still su(-ect the' to disciplinary proceedings would serve no use&ul purpose
and would only &urther aggravate the strained relations (etween petitioners and the o&&icials o&
respondent school which necessarily resulted &ro' the heated legal (attle here, in the Court o&
%ppeals and (e&ore the trial court.
123R345R3, the petition is GR%N,3*. ,he orders o& respondent -udge dated %ugust #, !"## and
4e(ruary ;, !"#" are here(y %NNGEE3*. Respondent Ma(ini College is 5R*3R3* to read'it
and to allow the re+ enroll'ent o& petitioners, i& they are still so 'inded, without pre-udice to its ta.ing
the appropriate action as to petitioners %riel Non, <oselito Hillalon, George ><orge? *ayaon and
*aniel ,orres, i& it is shown (y their records >4or' !37? that they have &ailed to satis&y the schoolBs
prescri(ed acade'ic standards.
$5 5R*3R3*.