SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL., petitioners vs.

PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION Quezon City Branch ET AL, respondents
May 2, 1988

FACTS:

In 1986, some PSBA students, herein petitioners Alcuaz et. al. staged demonstrations in the premises of the
school. In order for the demonstration to be settled, an agreement was entered into among others the
regulations for the conduct of protest action. In spite of the agreement, it was alleged that the petitioners,
committed tumultuous and anarchic acts within the premises of the school, fanned by the cooperation of the
intervening professors, causing disruption of classes to the prejudice of the majority students. The school took
administrative sanctions upon them in view of their participation in the demonstration. The students and the
intervening professors were sanctioned. They were dismissed and terminated.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there has been a deprivation of constitutional rights of expressionand assembly and of due
process of law of the students who have been barred from re-enrollment.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that due process in disciplinary cases such as the case at bar does not entail
proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in the courts of justice. The
Court has already recognized the right of the school to refuse re-enrollment of students for
academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations. In the school’s administrative process, both
students and professors were given three (3) days from receipt of letter to explain in writing why the school
should not take administrative sanction against them. With respect to the academic activities of the students
and the teaching loads of the teachers, the respondent school has created new class for the petitioners and the
intervening professors during and when the investigation was going on.

The Court then upheld that there is no denial of due process where all requirementsof administrative due
process were met by the school and the students were given the opportunity to be heard and that the right
of expression and assembly are not absolute especially when parties are bound to certain rules under a contract.