Candari, K-Phren

Corpuz, Gerard
del Rosario, Inah
LLB-111, I-M
August 8, 2016
UP Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals
(G.R. No. 134625, August 31, 1999)
Private respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine was charged by the
UP Board of Regents with plagiarism as she failed to cite two sources in her
dissertation as well as to make the proper corrections. Her doctorate degree in
Anthropology was revoked after she passed her oral defense, where majority of the
panel passed her, and her graduation.
She filed a Petition for Mandamus before the trial court on the ground that the
UP Board of Regents took her degree without just cause and procedural due process.
The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that Petitioner had academic
freedom. UP Board of Regents filed this recourse to the Supreme Court to reverse the
decision of the CA which set aside the decision of the Trial Court.

Was the revocation of the degree by the U.P. Board of Regents proper?

Yes, UP Board of Regents has academic freedom and thus has the right to
revoke a degree upon a finding that it was obtained through fraud or deceit provided
that the revocation be done with due process.
Article XIV, Section 5, paragraph 2 of the Constitution confers upon all
institutions of higher learning academic freedom which gives them the authority to
choose the students who are going to be given degrees as well as those whose degrees
must be revoked. The U.P. Board of Regents conducted investigations and allowed
Private Respondent to explain her side; it found that Private Respondent committed
around 90 instances of plagiarism in her dissertation which constitutes fraud or deceit
that calls for revocation of her degree. Contrary to her belief, this action by the U.P.
Board of Regents is not to discipline her which would make it within the jurisdiction
of the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. The U.P. Board of Regents is empowered by
virtue of academic freedom to ensure the integrity of the university as well as its
pursuit of academic excellence.
 Ateneo de Manila University vs. Capulong
(G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993)
The Board of the Ateneo Law School found the Respondents guilty of hazing,
either by active participation or through acquiescence because of their participation in
the initiation rites of their fraternity, Aquila Legis. The initiation rites resulted to the
death of one and serious physical injuries of another. Consequently, Fr. Joaquin
Bernas, as President of the University, dismissed the Respondents.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the ground that
they should be allowed to take their exams as they contended that were still enrolled
for that school year and that they were deprived of their right to due process.
Respondent Judge ordered the reinstatement of Respondents and that they be given
their final examinations. Hence this recourse by Ateneo de Manila University.

Is the dismissal of the students proper?

Yes, Petitioner Ateneo has academic freedom which gives it full discretion in
admission of their students. It followed the procedure and duly found that the
Respondents were present in the conduction of hazing activities as auxiliaries and did
nothing to prevent horrible results.
Notwithstanding the right of the student to choose what to study and to
continue their course until they graduate, this depends on the schools prerogative as
well as its rules and regulations. Indeed, to allow the reinstatement of the Respondents
would undermine the schools academic freedom. This is not a criminal case where
the Respondents guilt are to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, rather, it is a
disciplinary case involving students where a compliance of the minimum
requirements is sufficient. Ateneo de Manila did follow the minimum requirements in
cases of dismissal of students as stated in the Guzman v. National University: (1) that
the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of the accusation
against them; (2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with
the assistance of counsel, if desired; (2) that they shall be informed of the evidence
against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence on 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.
 Evelyn Chua- Qua vs. Hon. Jacobo C. Clave
(G.R. No. 49549, August 30, 1990)

Petitioner Evelyn Chua was a Grade VI class adviser where one Bobby Qua,
16 years old, was enrolled. Petitioner was giving remedial lessons to Bobby Qua as
per policy of the school when petitioner and Bobby became very close. When Bobby
acquired the consent of his mother, they eventually got married in a civil ceremony in
Iloilo City.
Private respondent Jacobo Clave of Tay Tung High School, Inc., filed an
application for clearance to terminate the employment of petitioner "[f]or abusive and
unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher and that her continued
employment is inimical to the best interest, and would downgrade the high moral
values, of the school." The Labor Arbiter granted the clearance without any formal
hearing. The National Labor Relations Commission reversed the finding of the Labor
Arbiter. However, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was reinstated by the Minster of
Labor. Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari claiming that she was deprived of her
right to due process and thus her dismissal is illegal.

Was the termination of Petitioner legal?

No, Petitioner enjoys security of tenure and can only be dismissed from work
for a valid cause.
Security of tenure is a privilege granted by the Constitution to labor and no
matter how ideal the policy of the school in the development of a child is, the
Petitioners security of tenure cannot be subjugated to it and used as a justification for
her dismissal. Accordingly, Respondent as employer had the burden to prove that
there is just and valid cause to dismiss Petitioner from work. Although she was
accorded due process, her termination is still illegal for lack of basis. The allegations
against the Petitioner, that she took advantage or committed immoral acts with Bobby
Qua remained unsubstantiated; the affidavits did not allege the immoral acts that were
committed by the Petitioner to Bobby Qua. Her marriage to Bobby Qua cannot be
easily said as an immoral act for they did really fall in love. It is not a violation of the
Code of Ethics governing school teachers which would justify her termination.