1/23/2017 G.R. No.

169391

TodayisMonday,January23,2017

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.169391October10,2012

GO,andMinorEMERSONCHESTERKIMB.GO,Petitioners,
vs.
COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN, REV. FR. EDWIN LAO, REV. FR. JOSE RHOMMEL HERNANDEZ,
ALBERTROSARDAandMA.TERESASURATOS,Respondents.

DECISION

BRION,J.:

Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Decision2 dated May 27, 2005 and the
resolution3 dated August 18, 2005 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. CV No. 80349. The CA decision
reversedandsetasidethedecision4oftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC')ofCaloocanCity,Branch131,awardingcivil
damagestothepetitioners.TheCAresolutiondeniedthepetitioners'subsequentmotionforreconsideration.

ThepetitionersclaimthatrespondentsColegiodeSanJuandeLetran(Letran),Rev.Fr.EdwinLao,Rev.Fr.Jose
RhommelHernandez,Mr.AlbertRosardaandMa.TeresaSuratosshouldbeheldliableformoral,exemplary,and
actual damages for unlawfully dismissing petitioner Emerson Chester Kim B. Go (Kim) from the rolls of the high
schooldepartmentofLetran.TherespondentsclaimthattheylawfullysuspendedKimforviolatingtheschoolsrule
againstfraternitymembership.

FactualBackground

InOctober2001,Mr.GeorgeIsleta,theHeadofLetransAuxiliaryServicesDepartment,receivedinformationthat
certainfraternitieswererecruitingnewmembersamongLetranshighschoolstudents.Healsoreceivedalistofthe
students allegedly involved. School authorities started an investigation, including the conduct of medical
examinationsonthestudentswhosenameswereonthelist.OnNovember20,2002,Dr.EmmanuelAsuncion,the
school physician, reported that six (6) students bore injuries, probable signs of blunt trauma of more than two
weeks,ontheposteriorportionsoftheirthighs.5Mr.Rosarda,theAssistantPrefectforDiscipline,conferredwiththe
studentsandaskedfortheirexplanationsinwriting.

Four(4)students,namely:RaphaelJayFulgencio,NicolaiLacson,CarlosParilla,andIsaacGumba,admittedthat
theywereneophytesoftheTauGammaFraternityandwerepresentinahazingriteheldonOctober3,2001inthe
house of one Dulce in Tondo, Manila. They also identified the senior members of the fraternity present at their
hazing.TheseincludedKim,thenafourthyearhighschoolstudent.

In the meantime, Gerardo Manipon, Letrans security officer, prepared an incident report6 that the Tau Gamma
FraternityhadviolateditscovenantwithLetranbyrecruitingmembersfromitshighschooldepartment.Manipolhad
spoken to one of the fraternity neophytes and obtained a list of eighteen (18) members of the fraternity currently
enrolledatthehighschooldepartment.Kimsnamewasalsointhelist.

At the ParentsTeachers Conference held on November 23, 2001, Mr. Rosarda informed Kims mother, petitioner
Mrs.AngelitaGo(Mrs.Go),thatstudentshadpositivelyidentifiedKimasafraternitymember.Mrs.Goexpressed
disbeliefashersonwassupposedlyunderhisparentsconstantsupervision.

Mr.RosardathereafterspoketoKimandaskedhimtoexplainhisside.Kimrespondedthroughawrittenstatement
datedDecember19,2001hedeniedthathewasafraternitymember.Hestatedthatatthattime,hewasatDulces
housetopickupagift,anddidnotattendthehazingofRafael,Nicolai,Carlos,andIsaac.

Onthesameday,Mr.RosardarequestedKimsparents(bynotice)toattendaconferenceonJanuary8,2002to
address the issue of Kims fraternity membership.7 Both Mrs. Go and petitioner Mr. Eugene Go (Mr. Go) did not

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 1/9
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169391
attendtheconference.

Intime,therespondentsfoundthattwentynine(29)oftheirstudents,includingKim,werefraternitymembers.The
respondentsfoundsubstantialbasisintheneophytesstatementsthatKimwasaseniorfraternitymember.Based
on their disciplinary rules, the Father Prefect for Discipline (respondent Rev. Fr. Jose Rhommel Hernandez)
recommended the fraternity members dismissal from the high school department rolls incidentally, this sanction
wasstatedinaJanuary10,2002lettertoMr.andMrs.Go.8AfterameetingwiththeRectorsCouncil,9however,
respondentFr.EdwinLao,FatherRectorandPresidentofLetran,rejectedtherecommendationtoallowthefourth
yearstudentstograduatefromLetran.Studentswhowerenotintheirfourthyearwereallowedtofinishthecurrent
schoolyearbutwerebarredfromsubsequentenrollmentinLetran.

Mr.RosardaconveyedtoMrs.GoandKim,intheirconferenceonJanuary15,2002,thedecisiontosuspendKim
fromJanuary16,2002toFebruary18,2002.10Incidentally,Mr.Godidnotattendthisconference.11

Onevendate,Mrs.GosubmittedarequestforthedefermentofKimssuspensiontoJanuary21,200212sothathe
couldtakeapreviouslyscheduledexamination.13Therequestwasgranted.14

OnJanuary22,2002,therespondentsconferredwiththeparentsofthesanctionedfourthyearstudentstodiscuss
the extension classes the students would take (as arranged by the respondents) as makeup for classes missed
duringtheirsuspension.Theseextensionclasseswouldenablethestudentstomeetallacademicrequirementsfor
graduation from high school by the summer of 2002. The respondents also proposed that the students and their
parents sign a proformaagreement to signify their conformity with their suspension. Mr. and Mrs. Go refused to
sign.15 They also refused to accept the respondents finding that Kim was a fraternity member. They likewise
insistedthatdueprocesshadnotbeenobserved.

OnJanuary28,2002,thepetitionersfiledacomplaint16fordamagesbeforetheRTCofCaloocanCityclaimingthat
therespondents17 had unlawfully dismissed Kim.18 Mr. and Mrs. Go also sought compensation for the "business
opportunitylosses"theysufferedwhilepersonallyattendingtoKimsdisciplinarycase.

TheRulingoftheRTC

Mrs. Go19 and Mr. Go20 testified for the petitioners at the trial. Mr. Rosarda,21 Fr. Hernandez,22 and Fr. Lao23
testifiedfortherespondents.

TheRTC24heldthattherespondentshadfailedtoobserve"thebasicrequirementofdueprocess"andthattheir
evidencewas"utterlyinsufficient"toprovethatKimwasafraternitymember.25ItalsodeclaredthatLetranhadno
authority to dismiss students for their fraternity membership. Accordingly, it awarded the petitioners moral and
exemplarydamages.ThetrialcourtalsoheldthatMr.Gowasentitledtoactualdamagesafterfindingthathehad
neglected his manufacturing business when he personally attended to his sons disciplinary case. The dispositive
portionofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court renders judgment in favor of plaintiffsspouses
Eugene C. Go and Angelita B. Go, together with their minor son Emerson Chester Kim B. Go, as
against defendants Colegio De San Juan De Letran, Fr. Edwin Lao, Fr. Jose Rhommel Hernandez,
AlbertRosardaandMa.TeresaSuratos,andtheyareherebyorderedthefollowing:

1.TopayplaintiffEugeneC.GotheamountofP2,854,000.00asactualdamages

2. To pay each plaintiff, Eugene C. Go and Angelita B. Go, the amount of P 2,000,000.00 for
eachdefendant,oratotalamountofP20,000,000.00asmoraldamagesandP 1,000,000.00
for each defendant, or a total amount of P 10,000,000.00 as exemplary damages, or a grand
total of P 30,000,000.00, to be paid solidarily by all liable defendants, plus prevailing legal
interestthereonfromthedateoffilinguntilthesameisfullypaid

3.Topayplaintiffs20%ofthetotalamountawarded,asattorneysfees,tobepaidsolidarilyby
allliabledefendantsand

4.Thecostofsuit.26

TheRulingoftheCA

On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision. It held, among others, that the petitioners were not
denieddueprocessasthepetitionershadbeengivenampleopportunitytobeheardinKimsdisciplinarycase.The
CAalsofoundthattherewasnobadfaith,malice,fraud,noranyimproperandwillfulmotiveorconductonthepart

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 2/9
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169391
oftherespondentstojustifytheawardofdamages.Accordingly,itdismissedthepetitionerscomplaintinCivilCase
No.C19938forlackofmerit.

The petitioners moved for the reconsideration of the decision, but the CA denied the motion for lack of merit27
hence,thepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorari.

TheIssue

Basedonthepetitionsassignederrors,28theissueforourresolutioniswhethertheCAhaderredinsettingaside
thedecisionoftheRTCinCivilCaseNo.C19938.

TheCourtsRuling

WedenythepetitionandaffirmtheCAdecision.

Preliminarily,wenotethatthedisciplinarysanctiontherespondentsimposedonKimwasactuallyasuspensionand
not a "dismissal" as the petitioners insist in their complaint. We agree with the CA that the petitioners were well
aware of this fact, as Mrs. Gos letter specifically requested that Kims suspensionbe deferred. That this request
wasgrantedandthatKimwasallowedtotaketheexaminationfurthersupporttheconclusionthatKimhadnotbeen
dismissed.

Further, the RTCs statement that Letran, a private school, possesses no authority to impose a dismissal, or any
disciplinary action for that matter, on students who violate its policy against fraternity membership must be
corrected.TheRTCreasonedoutthatOrderNo.20,seriesof1991,ofthethenDepartmentofEducation,Culture,
and Sports (DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991),29 which the respondents cite as legal basis for Letrans policy, only
coveredpublichighschoolsandnotprivatehighschoolssuchasLetran.

WedisagreewiththeRTCsreasoningbecauseitisarestrictiveinterpretationofDECSOrderNo.20,s.1991.True,
thefourthparagraphoftheorderstates:

4. EFFECTIVE UPON RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER, FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES ARE

PROHIBITED IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS. PENALTY FOR NON
COMPLIANCEISEXPULSIONOFPUPILS/STUDENTS.

This paragraph seems to limit the scope of the orders prohibition to public elementary and secondary schools.
However,inascertainingthemeaningofDECSOrderNo.20,s.1991,theentireordermustbetakenasawhole.30
It should be read, not in isolated parts, but with reference to every other part and every word and phrase in
connectionwithitscontext.31

EvenacursoryperusaloftherestofDECSOrderNo.20,s.1991revealstheeducationdepartmentsclearintentto
applytheprohibitionagainstfraternitymembershipforallelementaryandhighschoolstudents,regardlessoftheir
schoolofenrollment.

Theorderstitle,"ProhibitionofFraternitiesandSororitiesinElementaryandSecondarySchools,"servestoclarify
whatever ambiguity may arise from its fourth paragraph.32 It is a straightforward title. It directs the prohibition to
elementary and secondary schools in general, and does not distinguish between private and public schools. We
alsolookattheorderssecondparagraph,wherebythedepartmentfaultsanearlierregulation,DepartmentOrder
No.6,seriesof1954,forfailingtobanfraternitiesandsororitiesinpublicandprivatesecondaryschools.Withthe
secondparagraph,itisclearthattheeducationdepartmentsoughttoremedytheearlierordersfailingbywayof
DECSOrderNo.20,s.1991.

Finally,wenotethattheorderisaddressedtotheheadsofprivateschools,colleges,anduniversities,andnotjust
tothepublicschoolauthorities.

ForthisCourttosustaintheRTCsrestrictiveinterpretationandaccordinglylimittheprohibitioninDECSOrderNo.
20, s. 1991 to students enrolled in public schools would be to impede the very purpose of the order.33 In United
HarborPilotsAssociationofthePhilippines,Inc.v.AssociationofInternationalShippingLines,Inc.,wheretheCourt
construedanexecutiveorder,34wealsostatedthatstatutesaretobegivensuchconstructionaswouldadvancethe
object, suppress the mischief, and secure the benefits the statute intended. There is no reason why this principle
cannotapplytotheconstructionofDECSOrderNo.20,s.1991.

Incidentally, the penalty for noncompliance with DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991, is expulsion, a severe form of
disciplinarypenaltyconsistingofexcludingastudentfromadmissiontoanypublicorprivateschoolinthecountry.It
requirestheapprovaloftheeducationsecretarybeforeitcanbeimposed.35Incontrast,thepenaltyprescribedby
therulesofLetranforfraternitymembershipamongtheirhighschoolstudentsisdismissal,which is limited tothe
exclusionofanerringstudentfromtherollsoftheschool.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 3/9
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169391
Evenassumingarguendothattheeducationdepartmenthadnotissuedsuchprohibition,privateschoolsstillhave
theauthoritytopromulgateandenforceasimilarprohibitionpursuanttotheirrighttoestablishdisciplinaryrulesand
regulations.36 This right has been recognized in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, which has the
characteroflaw.37Section78ofthe1992ManualofRegulationsofRegulationsforPrivateSchools,inparticular
andwithrelevancetothiscase,provides:

Section 78. Authority to Promulgate Disciplinary Rules. Every private school shall have the right to
promulgate reasonable norms, rules and regulations it may deem necessary and consistent with the
provisions of this Manual for the maintenance of good school discipline and class attendance. Such
rulesandregulationsshallbeeffectiveasofpromulgationandnotificationtostudentsinanappropriate
schoolissuanceorpublication.

The right to establish disciplinary rules is consistent with the mandate in the Constitution38 for schools to teach
discipline39 in fact, schools have the duty to develop discipline in students.40 Corollarily, the Court has always
recognized the right of schools to impose disciplinary sanctions on students who violate disciplinary rules.41 The
penaltyforviolationsincludesdismissalorexclusionfromreenrollment.

WefindLetransruleprohibitingitshighschoolstudentsfromjoiningfraternitiestobeareasonableregulation,not
only because of the reasons stated in DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991,42 but also because of the adultoriented
activities often associated with fraternities. Expectedly, most, if not all, of its high school students are minors.
Besides, Letrans penalty for violation of the rule is clearly stated in its enrollment contracts and in the Students
Handbooks43itdistributesatthestartofeveryschoolyear.44

Inthiscase,thepetitionerswerenotifiedofbothruleandpenaltythroughKimsenrollmentcontractforschoolyear
2001to2002.45Notably,thepenaltyprovidedforfraternitymembershipis"summarydismissal."Wealsonotethat
Mrs. Go signified her conform to these terms with her signature in the contract.46 No reason, therefore, exist to
justifythetrialcourtspositionthatrespondentLetrancannotlawfullydismissviolatingstudents,suchasKim.

On the issue of due process, the petitioners insist that the question be resolved under the guidelines for
administrativedueprocessinAngTibayv.CourtofIndustrialRelations.47Theyarguethattherespondentsviolated
dueprocess(a)bynotconductingaformalinquiryintothechargeagainstKim(b)bynotgivingthemanywritten
noticeofthechargeand(c)bynotprovidingthemwiththeopportunitytocrossexaminetheneophyteswhohad
positively identified Kim as a senior member of their fraternity. The petitioners also fault the respondents for not
showingthemtheneophyteswrittenstatements,whichtheyclaimtobeunverified,unsworn,andhearsay.

Theseargumentsdeservescantattention.

InAteneodeManilaUniversityv.Capulong,48theCourtheldthatGuzmanv.NationalUniversity,49notAngTibay,
is the authority on the procedural rights of students in disciplinary cases. In Guzman, we laid down the minimum
standardsintheimpositionofdisciplinarysanctionsinacademicinstitutions,asfollows:

Itbearsstressingthatdueprocessindisciplinarycasesinvolvingstudentsdoesnotentailproceedings
and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The
proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary and crossexamination is not, contrary to
petitionersview,anessentialpartthereof.Therearewithalminimumstandardswhichmustbemetto
satisfythedemandsofproceduraldueprocessandtheseare,that(1)thestudentsmustbeinformed
in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them (2) they shall have the right to
answerthechargesagainstthem,withtheassistanceofcounsel,ifdesired(3)theyshallbeinformed
oftheevidenceagainstthem(4)theyshallhavetherighttoadduceevidenceintheirownbehalfand
(5)theevidencemustbedulyconsideredbytheinvestigatingcommitteeorofficialdesignatedbythe
schoolauthoritiestohearanddecidethecase.50

Thesestandardsrenderthepetitionersargumentstotallywithoutmerit.

InDeLaSalleUniversity,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,51whereweaffirmedthepetitioninguniversitysrighttoexclude
studentsfromtherollsoftheirrespectiveschools52fortheirinvolvementinafraternitymaulingincident,werejected
theargumentthatthereisadenialofdueprocesswhenstudentsarenotallowedtocrossexaminethewitnesses
againsttheminschooldisciplinaryproceedings.Werejectthesameargumentinthiscase.

We are likewise not moved by the petitioners argument that they were not given the opportunity to examine the
neophyteswrittenstatementsandthesecurityofficersincidentreport.53Thesedocumentsareadmissibleinschool
disciplinary proceedings, and may amount to substantial evidence to support a decision in these proceedings. In
AteneodeManilaUniversityv.Capulong,54wheretheprivaterespondentswerestudentsdismissedfromtheirlaw
schoolafterparticipatinginhazingactivities,weheld:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 4/9
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169391
Respondentstudentsmaynotusetheargumentthatsincetheywerenotaccordedtheopportunityto
seeandexaminethewrittenstatementswhichbecamethebasisofpetitionersFebruary14,1991
order,theyweredeniedproceduraldueprocess.Grantingthattheyweredeniedsuchopportunity,the
samemaynotbesaidtodetractfromtheobservanceofdueprocess,fordisciplinarycasesinvolving
studentsneednotnecessarilyincludetherighttocrossexamination.[Emphasisours.]55

Sincedisciplinaryproceedingsmaybesummary,theinsistencethata"formalinquiry"ontheaccusationagainstKim
shouldhavebeenconductedlackslegalbasis.Ithasnofactualbasisaswell.WhilethepetitionersstatethatMr.
andMrs.Gowere"nevergivenanopportunitytoassistKim,"56therecordsshowthattherespondentsgavethem
two(2)notices,datedDecember19,2001andJanuary8,2002,forconferencesonJanuary8,2002andJanuary
15, 2002.57 The notices clearly state: "Dear Mr./Mrs. Go, We would like to seek your help in correcting Kims
problem on: Discipline & Conduct Offense: Membership in Fraternity."58 Thus, the respondents had given them
ampleopportunitytoassisttheirsoninhisdisciplinarycase.

Therecordsalsoshowthat,withoutanyexplanation,bothparentsfailedtoattendtheJanuary8,2002conference
whileMr.GodidnotbothertogototheJanuary15,2002conference."Whereapartywasaffordedanopportunityto
participateintheproceedingsbutfailedtodoso,hecannot[thereafter]complainofdeprivationofdueprocess."59

Throughthenotices,therespondentsdulyinformedthepetitionersinwritingthatKimhadadisciplinarychargefor
fraternitymembership.AttheearlierNovember23,2001ParentsTeachersConference,Mr.Rosardaalsoinformed
Mrs.GothatthechargestemmedfromthefraternityneophytespositiveidentificationofKimasamemberthusthe
petitionersfullyknewofthenatureoftheevidencethatstoodagainstKim.

Thepetitionersneverthelessarguethattherespondentsdefectivelyobservedthewrittennoticerulebecausethey
had requested, and received, Kims written explanation at a time when the respondents had not yet issued the
writtennoticeoftheaccusationagainsthim.TherecordsindicatethatwhileKimsdenialandthefirstnoticewere
both dated December 19, 2001, Kim had not yet received the notice at the time he made the requested written
explanation.

We see no merit in this argument as the petitioners apparently hew to an erroneous view of administrative due
process.Jurisprudencehasclarifiedthatadministrativedueprocesscannotbefullyequatedwithdueprocessinthe
strict judicial sense.60 The very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally
applicabletoeveryimaginablesituation.61Thus,wearehardpressedtobelievethatKimsdenialofhisfraternity
membership before formal notice was given worked against his interest in the disciplinary case. What matters for
dueprocesspurposeisnoticeofwhatistobeexplained,nottheforminwhichthenoticeisgiven.

Theraison detre of the written notice rule is to inform the student of the disciplinary charge against him and to
enable him to suitably prepare a defense. The records show that as early as November 23, 2001, it was already
madeplaintothepetitionersthatthesubjectmatterofthecaseagainstKimwashisallegedfraternitymembership.
Thus,bythetimeMr.RosardaspoketoKimandaskedforhiswrittenexplanationinDecember2001,Kimhashad
enough time to prepare his response to this plain charge. We also note that the information in the notice the
respondentssubsequentlysentisnodifferentfromtheinformationthattheyhadearlierconveyed,albeitorally,to
the petitioners: the simple unadorned statement that Kim stood accused of fraternity membership. Given these
circumstances,wearenotconvincedthatKimsrighttoexplainhissideasexercisedinhiswrittendenialhadbeen
violatedordiminished.Theessenceofdueprocess,itbearsrepeating,issimplytheopportunitytobeheard.62

AndKimhadbeenheard.Hiswrittenexplanationwasreceived,indeedevensolicited,bytherespondents. Thus, 1wphi1

he cannot claim thathewasdeniedtherighttoadduceevidenceinhisbehalf.In fact, the petitioners were given

furtheropportunitytoproduceadditionalevidencewiththeJanuary8,2002conferencethattheydidnotattend.We
arealsosatisfiedthattherespondentshadconsideredallthepiecesofevidenceandfoundthesetobesubstantial.
WenoteespeciallythatthepetitionersneverimputedanymotiveonKimscostudentsthatwouldjustifytheclaim
thattheyutteredfalsehoodagainsthim.

InLicupv.SanCarlosUniversity,63 the Court held that when a student commits a serious breach of discipline or
failstomaintaintherequiredacademicstandard,heforfeitshiscontractualright,andthecourtshouldnotreviewthe
discretionofuniversityauthorities.64InSanSebastianCollegev.CourtofAppeals,etal.,65weheldthatonlywhen
there is marked arbitrariness should the court interfere with the academic judgment of the school faculty and the
properauthorities.66 In this case, we find that the respondents observed due process in Kims disciplinary case,
consistent with our pronouncements in Guzman. No reason exists why the above principles in these cited cases
cannot apply to this case. The respondents decision that Kim had violated a disciplinary rule and should be
sanctionedmustberespected.

Asafinalpoint,theCAcorrectlyheldthattherewerenofurtherbasestoholdtherespondentsliableformoralor
exemplarydamages.Ourstudyoftherecordsconfirmsthattherespondentsdidnotactwithbadfaith,malice,fraud,
or improper or willful motive or conduct in disciplining Kim. Moreover, we find no basis for the award of actual
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 5/9
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169391

damages.Thepetitionersclaim,andtheRTCagreed,67thattherespondentsareliableforthebusinessopportunity
losses the petitioners incurred after their clients had cancelled their purchases in their plasticmanufacturing
business.Toprovetheclaim,Mr.Gotestifiedthatheneglectedhisbusinessaffairsbecausehehadhisattentionon
Kim'sunlawfuldismissal,andthathisclientshadsubsequentlycancelledtheirpurchaseorderswhenhecouldnot
confirmthem.68Histestimonyonthereasonfortheclients'cancellation,however,isobviouslyhearsayandremains
speculative.Therespondents'liabilityforactualdamagescannotbebasedonspeculation.

For these reasons, we find no reversible error Ill the assailed ('A decision, and accordingly, DENY the present
petition.

WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,weherebyAFFIRMthedecisiondatedMay2712005oftheCourtofAppeals
inCAG.R.CVNo.80349.

Costsagainstthepetitioners.

SOORDERED.

ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

Iattestth3ttheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassig11ed
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article Vlll of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby
certifiedthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassigned
tothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourt'sDivision.

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice

Footnotes

1FiledunderRule45oftheRulesofCourtrollo,pp.337.

2PennedbyAssociateJusticeRosmariD.CarandangandconcurredinbyAssociateJusticesRemediosA.
SalazarFernandoandMoninaArevaloZenarosaId.At4051.

3Id.At5355.

4InCivilCaseNo.C19938,datedAugust18,2003id.At8193.

5RTCRecords,p.540.

6Id.at545.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 6/9
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169391
7Id.at548.

8Id.at502.

9TSNdatedJune30,2003,p.657.

10Id.at658.

11TSNdatedMay19,2003,p.399.

12TSNdatedJune17,2003,p.542.

13RTCRecords,p.503.

14TSNdatedJune17,2003,p.507andTSNdatedJune30,2003,p.663.

15RTCRecords,p.552.

16RTCRecords,p.7.

17IncludingLetranHighSchoolPrincipalMa.TeresaSuratos.

18RTCRecords,p.15.

19TSNdatedJanuary31,2003.

20TSNdatedFebruary5,2003andMarch31,2003.

21TSNdatedMay19,2003.

22TSNdatedJune17,2003.

23TSNdatedJune30,2003.

24JudgeAntonioJ.Fineza,presiding.

25Rollo,pp.9091.

26Id.at93.

27Id.at55.

28Rollo,p.19.Thepresentpetitionassignedthefollowingerrors:

ASSIGNMENTOFERRORS

WITH DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ABUSED ITS
DISCRETION AND COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR OF LAW WHEN IT HELD THAT I DUE
PROCESSATTENDEDTHESANCTIONIMPOSEDBYRESPONDENTSONPETITIONERKIM
JUSTBECAUSETHEYREQUIREDHIMTOEXPLAININWRITING(WITHOUTANYWRITTEN
CHARGEINFORMINGHIMOFTHENATUREANDCAUSEOFACCUSATIONAGAINSTHIM)
HIS MEMBERSIP [sic] IN FRATERNITY, WHICH HE DID BY DENYING IT, ALTHOUGH THE
SANCTION IS BASED MERELY ON CONFIDENTIAL, UNDISCLOSED, UNVERIFIED OR
UNSWORN STATEMENTS OF HIS COSTUDENTS AND, WORSE, ON CONFIDENTIAL,
UNDISCLOSED, UNVERIFIED AND DOUBLE HERESAY [sic] REPORT OF RESPONDENT
SCHOOLSDETACHMENTCOMMANDER.

IIWHENITCLEAREDRESPONDENTSOFANYLIABILITYFORDAMAGES.

29DECSOrderNo.20,s.1991reads:

PROHIBITIONOFFRATERNITIESANDSORORITIESINELEMENTARYANDSECONDARY
SCHOOLS

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 7/9
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169391
To:BureauDirectors
RegionalDirectors
SchoolSuperintendents
Presidents,StateCollegesandUniversities
HeadsofPrivateSchools,CollegesandUniversities
VocationalSchoolSuperintendents/Administrators

1. Recent events call attention to unfortunate incidents resulting from initiation rites
(hazing) conducted in fraternities and sororities. In some cases, problems like drug
addiction, vandalism, absenteeism, rumble and other behavior problems in elementary
and secondary schools were found to be linked to the presence of and/or the active
membershipofsomepupils/studentsinsuchorganizations.

2. Although Department Order No. 6, s. 1954 prohibits hazing in schools and imposes
sanctions for violations, it does not ban fraternities/sororities in public and private
secondaryschools.

3.Consideringthatenrolmentsinelementaryandsecondaryschoolsarerelativelysmall
and students come from the immediate communities served, the presence of
fraternities/sororities which serve as socializing agents among pupil/studentpeers is not
deemednecessary.Ontheotherhand,interestclubsandcocurricularorganizationslike
the Drama Club, Math Club, Junior Police organization and others perform that same
functionandinadditiondeveloppupil/studentpotentials.

4. Effective upon receipt of this order, fraternities and sororities are prohibited in public
elementary and secondary schools. Penalty for noncompliance is expulsion of
pupils/students.

5.WidedisseminationofandstrictcompliancewiththisOrderisenjoined.

(Sgd.)ISIDROD.CARIO
[emphasisours]

30SeeJudgeLeynesv.CommissiononAudit,463Phil.557,573(2003).

31SeeCommissionerofInternalRevenuev.TMXSales,Inc.,205SCRA184,188.

32SeeGovernmentoftheP.I.v.MunicipalityofBinalonan,32Phil.634,636(1915).

33Paragraphs1and2,DECSOrderNo.20,s.1991.WealsonotethattheintentoftheDECSOrderNo.20,
s. 1991 has been further clarified by the Department of Education itself in a 2006 issuance titled
"REITERATING THE PROHIBITION OF THE PRACTICE OF HAZING AND THE OPERATION OF
FRATERNITIES IN SORORITIES IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS." Department of
Education Order No. 7, s. 2006 explicitly states, and we quote: "DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991, meanwhile,
prohibitstheoperationoffraternitiesinpublicandprivateelementaryandsecondaryschools."

34G.R.No.133763,November13,2002,391SCRA522,533.SeealsoAssociationofInternationalShipping
Lines,Inc.v.UnitedHarborPilotsAssociationofthePhilippines,Inc.,G.R.No.172029,August6,2008,561
SCRA284,294.
35Section77,1992ManualofRegulationsforPrivateSchools.

36Tanv.CourtofAppeals,276Phil.227(1991).

37EspirituSantoParochialSchoolv.NLRC,258Phil.600(1989).

38CONSTITUTION,ArticleXIV,Section3(2).

39Jenosav.Delariarte,G.R.No.172138,September8,2010,630SCRA295,302.

40SeeMiriamCollegeFoundation,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,401Phil.431,456(2000).

41Alcuaz v. Philippine School of Business Administration, 244 Phil. 8, 23 (1988), citing Ateneo de Manila
Universityv.CourtofAppeals,No.L56180,October16,1986,145SCRA100andLicupv.UniversityofSan
Carlos(USC),258APhil.417,424.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 8/9
1/23/2017 G.R. No. 169391
42Supranote29.

43RTCRecords,pp.536537.

44TSNdatedMay19,2003,p.348.

45RTCRecords,pp.538539.

46TSNdatedMay19,2003,p.350.

4769Phil.635(1940).

48G.R.No.99327,May27,1993,222SCRA644,656.

49226Phil.596(1986).

50Id.at603604.

51G.R.No.127980,December19,2007,541SCRA22,5253.

52ThestudentswereenrolledattheDeLaSalleUniversityandtheCollegeofSaintBenilde.

53ThesedocumentswerelaterformallyofferedinCivilCaseNo.C19938asExhibits"7,""8,""9,""10,"and
"11"RTCRecords,pp.541546.

54Supranote48.

55Id.at657658.

56RTCRecords,p.15.

57TSNdatedJanuary31,2003,Record,pp.116,118,123.

58Records,pp.548549.

59DeLaSalleUniversity,Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,supranote51,at51.

60Gatusv.QualityHouse,Inc.,G.R.No.156766,April16,2009,585SCRA177,190.

61Perezv.PhilippineTelegraphandTelephoneCompany,G.R.No.152048,April7,2009,584SCRA110,
123.

62Gatusv.QualityHouse,Inc., supra note 59, at 190, citing Phil. Airlines, Inc. v. National Labor Relations
Commission,G.R.No.87353,July3,1991,198SCRA.748seealsoAudionElectricCo.v.NationalLabor
RelationsCommission,G.R.No.106648,June19,1999,308SCRA341.

63Supranote41.

64Ibid.

65274Phil.414(1991).

66Id.at 424, citing Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee,Loyola School of Theology, No. L40779,
November28,1975,68SCRA277,289.

67SeetheRH'Decision,p.92.

68TSNdatedFebruary5.2003,pp.242to243.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2012/oct2012/gr_169391_2012.html 9/9