UP Board of Regents VS Court of Appeals and AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE

G.R. No. 134625. August 31, 1999

Facts:
Private respondent Ms. Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine a citizen of India enrolled doctoral
program in UP CSSP Diliman QC. She is ready for oral defense with selected panel members Drs. E. Arsenio
Manuel, Serafin Quiason, Sri Skandarajah, Noel Teodoro, and Isagani Medina, the last included as the dean’s
representative.

Even though Dr. Medina noticed that there were portions of her dissertation that was lifted from
different sources without proper acknowledgement, she was still allowed to continue to with her oral defense.
Four (4) out five (5) give her a passing mark with condition to incorporate the suggestion made by the panel
members. Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form. Dr. Teodoro also noted that a revision should be
submitted.
On March 24, 1993, The CSSP College Faculty Assembly approved her graduation pending the final
revised copies of her dissertation. Private respondent submitted the supposedly final revised copies although
petitioners maintained that suggestions were not incorporated. She left a copy for Dr. Teodoro and Dr. Medina
and did not wait for their approval relying to the Dean Paz remarks during previous meeting that a majority vote
was sufficient for her to pass. The supposedly revised copies were later disapproved by Dr. Teodoro and Dr.
Medina.
Private respondent was disappointed with the administration. She charge Dr. Diokno and Medina with
maliciously working for the disapproval of her dissertation and further warned Dean Paz against encouraging
perfidious act against her. Dean Paz attempts to exclude the private respondent in the graduating list in a letter
addressed to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (Dr. Milagros Ibe), pending for clarification of her
charges against panel members and accusations relating to her dissertation. Unfortunately the letter did not reach
on time and the respondent was allowed to graduate. Dean Paz wrote a letter that she would not be granted an
academic clearance unless she substantiated the accusations. In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, Dr. Medina
formally charged private respondent with plagiarism and recommended for the withdrawal of her doctorate
degree.
Dean Paz formed an ad-hoc committee (Ventura Committee) to investigate and recommend to
Chancellor Dr. Roman to withdraw her doctorate degree. Private respondent was informed of the charges in a
letter. Ventura Committee finds at 90 instances or portions of thesis lifted from other sources with no proper
acknowledgement. After it was unanimously approved and endorsed from the CSSP and Univ. Council the
recommendation for withdrawal was endorsed to Board of Regents who deferred its actions to study further for
legal implications. Private respondent was provided with a copy of findings and in return she also submitted her
written explanation. Another meeting was scheduled to discuss her answer.
Zafaralla Committee was also created and recommends private respondent for withdrawal of her degree
after establishing the facts the there were massive lifting from published sources and the private respondent also
admits herself of being guilty of plagiarism.
On the basis of the report and recommendation of the University Council, the Board of Regents send a
letter to inform private respondent that it was resolved by majority to withdraw your doctorates degree.
On August 10, 1995, private respondent then filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction and damages to RTC QC. She alleged that petitioners had unlawfully
withdrawn her degree without justification and without affording her procedural due process. She prayed that
petitioners be ordered to restore her degree and to pay her P500, 000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and
P1, 500,000.00 as compensation for lost earnings. RTC dismissed for lack of merit. The Court of Appeals
reversed the lower court’s decision and ordered to restore her doctorates degree.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in granting the writ of mandamus and ordering petitioners to
restore doctoral degree.

2. Whether or not the court of appeals erred in holding that respondent’s doctoral degree cannot be recalled
without violating her right to enjoyment of intellectual property and to justice and equity.

Held/Ruling:

The decision of Court of Appeals was reversed.

1. Yes. The court of appeals decisions was based on grounds that the private respondent was denied of due
process and that she graduated and no longer in the ambit of disciplinary powers of UP.
In all investigations held by the different committee assigned to investigate the charges, the private
respondent was heard on her defense. In fact she was informed in writing about the charges and was provided
 with a copy from the investigating committee. She was asked to submit her explanation which she forwarded.
Private respondent also discussed her case with the UP Chancellor and Zafaralla Committee during their
meetings. She was given the opportunity to be heard and explain her side but failed to refute the charges of
plagiarism against her.
The freedom of a university does not terminate upon the "graduation" of a student, as the Court of
Appeals held because the "graduation" of such a student that is in question. The investigation began before
graduation. She was able to graduate because there were many investigations conducted before the Board finally
decided that she should not have been allowed to graduate.

2. Yes. The court held that academic freedom is guaranteed to institutions of higher learning by Art XIV of
the 1987 Constitution. This freedom includes deciding whom a university will confer degrees on. If the degree is
procured by error or fraud then the Board of Regents, subject to due process being followed, may cancel that
degree.
Art. XIV, Section 5 par. 2 of the Constitution provides that "academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning."
It is a freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning" which is thus given "a wide sphere of
authority certainly extending to the choice of students." If such institution of higher learning can decide who can
and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of
being its graduates.