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 expression and
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 requirements of
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.