You are on page 1of 2

NON VS. DAMES [185 SCRA 523; G.R. NO.

89317; 20 MAY 1990] Facts: Petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini Colleges, Inc. in Daet, Camarines Norte, were not allowed to re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating instudent mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. The subject of the protests is not, however, made clear in the pleadings. Petitioners filed a petition in the court seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to the school, but the trial court dismissed the petition. They now petition the court to reverse its ruling in Alcuaz vs. PSBA1, which was also applied in the case. The court said that petitioners waived their privilege to be admitted for re-enrollment with respondent college when they adopted, signed, and used its enrollment form for the firstsemester of school year 1988-89, which states that: The Mabini College reserves the right to deny admission of students whose scholarship and attendance are unsatisfactory and to require withdrawal of studentswhose conduct discredits the institution and/or whose activities unduly disrupts or interfere with the efficient operation of the college.Students, therefore, are required to behave in accord with the Mabini College code of conduct and discipline. Issue: Whether or Not the students right to freedom of speech and assembly infringed. Held: Yes. The protection to the cognate rights of speech and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution is similarly available tostudents is well-settled in our jurisdiction. However there are limitations. The permissible limitation on Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights within the school presupposes that conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior should not materially disrupt classwork or must not involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. SUBIDO (editor manila post) VS. OZAETA(sec of justice) & Villanueva Register of Deeds FACTS: Petitioner was the editor of the Manila Post who sought the inspection of real estates sold to aliens and registered with the Register of Deeds (RD) who was given the authority thru DOJ Circular to examine all the records in the respondents custody relative to the said transactions. ISSUE: What is the extent of the discretion of the Register of Deeds (RD) to regulate the accessibility of records relating to registered lands in its office. HELD: What the law expects and requires from the RD is the exercise of an unbiased and impartial judgment by which all persons resorting to the office, under the legal authority and conducting themselves with the motives, reasons and objects of the person seeking access to the records. Except when it is clear that the purpose of the inspection is unlawful, it is not the duty of the registration officers to concern themselves with the motives, purposes, and objects of the person seeking to inspect the records. It is not their prerogative to see that the information which the records contain is not flaunted before the public gaze.

Upon the foregoing considerations, mandamus is the appropriate remedy, and the petition will be granted commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner or his accredited representatives to examine, extract, abstract or make memoranda of the records of sales of real properties to aliens subject to such restriction and limitation as may be deemed necessary not incompatible with his decision, without costs. Baldoza v. Dimaano (May 5, 1976) Administrative Matter in the Supreme Court. Antonio, J. Facts: Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, charges Municipal Judge Dimaano with abuse of authority in refusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court to secure data in connection with their contemplated report on peace and order conditions of the municipality. Respondent answered that there has never been an intention to refuse access to official court records but that the same is always subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where and how they may be inspected. He further asserted that a court has the power to prevent an improper use or inspection of its records and furnishing copies may be refuse when the motivation is not serious and legitimate interest, out of whim or fancy or mere curiosity or to gratify private site or promote public scandal. In his answer, respondent observed; o Restrictions are imposed by the Court for fear of an abuse in the exercise of the right. o There has been recent tampering of padlocks of the door of the Court and with this, to allow an indiscriminate and unlimited exercise of the right to free access, might do more harm than good. o Request of such a magnitude cannot b immediately granted without adequate deliberation and advisement o Authority should first be secured from the Supreme Court Case was referred to Judge Riodique for investigation and report. At the preliminary hearing, Taal Mayor Corazon Caniza filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony and cooperation among officers. This motion was denied by Investigating Judge but he recommended the exoneration of respondent. Investigating Judges report avers that complainant was aware of the motion to dismiss and he was in conformity with it. Communications between complainant and respondent reveal that respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of the respondent under certain conditions and under his control and supervision. Under the conditions, the Court found that the respondent has not committed any abuse of authority

Issue: WON respondent acted arbitrarily in the premises (when he allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of respondent) Held: No. The respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books of respondent under certain conditions and under his control and supervision. It has not been shown that the rules and condition imposed by the

respondent were unreasonable. The access to public records is predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on public concern. Rules/Principles: In People ex rel. Title Guarantee & T. Co vs. Railly, the Court said: What the law expects and requires from his is the exercise of an unbiased and impartial judgment, by which all persons resorting to the office, under legal authority, and conducting themselves in an orderly manner, shall be secured their lawful rights and privileges, and that a corporation formed in the manner in which the relator has been, shall be permitted to obtain all the information either by searches, abstracts, or copies, that the law has entitled it to obtain. Except, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful, or sheer, idle curiosityIt is not their prerogative to see that the information which the records contain is not flaunted before public gaze, or that scandal is not made of itIt is the legislature and not the officials having custody thereof which is called upon to devise a remedy. Justice Briones in his concurring opinion predicated such right on the constitutional right of the press to have access to information as the essence of press freedom. The New Constitution (1973?) expressly recognizes that the people are entitled to information on matters of public concern and thus are expressly granted access to official records. Information is needed to enable the members of society to cope with the exigencies of the times. Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the case against respondent is hereby dismissed. LEGASPI V CSC Facts Citizen Valentin Legaspi requested from the Civil Service Commission information on the civil service eligibilities of sanitarian employees in the Health Department of Cebu City. The Commission rejected the request, asserting that Legaspi was not entitled to the information. Legaspi instituted an action for mandamus from the Court to require that the information be provided (pg. 1). Decision The Court began by noting that both the 1973 (Art. IV, Sec. 6) and 1987 (Art. III, Sec. 7) constitutions recognize the right of the people to information on matters of public concern. Further, they specify that information shall be provided, subject only to limitations provided by law (pg. 1). While the Solicitor General interposed a procedural objection challenging the requesters standing in this petition for mandamus, the Court ruled that, in this case, the people are regarded as the real party in interest and the requester, as a citizen interested in the execution of the laws, did not need to show any legal or special interest in the result (pg. 2). Further, government agencies have no discretion to refuse disclosure of, or access to, information of public concern because the Constitution guarantees access to information of public concern, a recognition of the essentiality of the free flow of ideas and information in a democracy (pg. 3-4). That is, the government agency denying information access has the burden to show that the information is not of public concern, or, if it is of public concern, that the information has been exempted by law from the operation of the guarantee (pg. 5). Here, the information was of a public concern because it is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that government

positions requiring civil service eligibility are occupied only by eligible persons, and the Civil Service Commission failed to cite any law limiting the requesters right to know (pg. 5). Thus, the Court ordered the Civil Service Commission to provide the information (pg. 6). H: The Constitution requires government agencies to to provide information upon request; if they do not want to disclose information, they carry the burden of proving that the information is not of public concern or, if it is of public concern, that the information has been specifically exempted by law. Moreover, a citizen does not need to show any legal or special interest in order to establish his or her right to information.