GR No.

2111362, Feb 24, 2015 (En Banc)

CADET 1CL ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA of the PMA, represented by his father
RENATO P. CUDIA, who also acts on his own behalf, and BERTENI CATALUNA
CAUSING, v PMA Supt, The Honor Committee of 2014 of PMA, and the
and HC MEMBERS, and the CADET REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD (CRAB)

FACTS:

Cadet 1 CL Cudia was a member of PMA Class of 2014 in Baguio City. He was
supposed to graduate with honors as the class salutatorian, receive the Philippine Navy
Saber as the top Navy cadet graduate, and be commissioned as an ensign of the
Philippine Navy.

Cadet Cudia was issued a Delinquency Report for being 2 minutes late in his 5 th period
Nov 13, 2014 Eng class.. In his Explanation dated Dec 8, 2013, Cudia claimed that
they were dismissed “a bit late” by their 4 th period instructor, Dr Monica Costales. On
Dec 19, 2013, Cadet Cudia was meted out the penalty of 11 demerits and 13 touring
hours, on the basis of confirmation from Dr Costales that she never dismissed her class
late, and she followed the protocol to dismiss the class 10-15 minutes earlier than
scheduled. Investigation confirmed that the 4 th period class was not dismissed late,
sustaining the penalty imposed on Cudia. On Jan 7, 2014, Cadet Cudia was informed
that said violation was reported to the Honor Committee for violation of the Honor
Code. After hearing and investigation, the Honor Committee voted 8-1 in favor of a
guilty verdict.

On Feb 8, 2014, the Commandant of Cadets affirmed the Honor Committee findings
and recommended to the PMA Superintendent the separation from the PMA of Cadet
Cudia for violation of the First Tenet of the Honor Code (Lying). Two days later, the
recommendation to dismiss Cadet Cudia was approved.

In the meantime, Cadet Cudia made appeals for his reinstatement, to the Commandant
of Cadets and the new PMA Superintendent. His sister posted his plight on Facebook.
On Feb 25, 2014, Cadet Cudia and his family engaged the services of the PAO in
Baguio City.

On Feb 28, 2014, the Spouses Cudia filed a letter-complaint before the CHR-Cordillera
Administrative Region (CAR) Office against the HC members and Maj. Gracilla for
alleged violation of the human rights of Cadet lCL Cudia, particularly his rights to due
process, education, and privacy of communication.

Six days prior to the March 16, 2014 PMA graduation, petitioners filed this petition for
certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for extremely urgent temporary
restraining order (TRO). The Court denied the prayer for TRO and instead, required
respondents to file their comment on the petition.

In this action, petitioners pray for, among others, the issuance a Writ of Mandamus to:

1. direct the PMA to include Cadet Cudia in the list of graduates of Siklab Diwa
Class of 2014 of the PMA, including inclusion in the yearbook;

2. direct the PMA to allow Cadet Cudia to take part in the commencement
exercises if he completed all the requirements for his baccalaureate degree;

3. direct the PMA to award unto Cadet Cudia the academic honors he deserves,
and the commission as a new Philippine Navy ensign;

Similarly, petitioner-intervenor seeks for a Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding:

a.) The PMA, Honor Committee, and CRAB to respect and uphold the 8 Guilty -1
Not Guilty vote;

b.) The PMA, Honor Committee, and CRAB to officially pronounce Cadet Cudia
as Not Guilty of the charge filed against him before the Honor Committee;

c.) The PMA to restore Cadet Cudia's rights and entitlements as a full-fledged
graduating cadet, including his diploma and awards.63

ISSUES:

Whether or not mandamus will lie to compel the PMA to include Cadet Cudia in the
graduating Class of 2014, bestow him with academic honors and commission him to
the Philippine Navy.
HELD:

Petition is denied. Dismissal of Cadet Cudia is affirmed. A petition for mandamus is

improper.

Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for mandamus may
be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an
office, trust, or station. It may also be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer, or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or
office to which such other is entitled.

For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must be a ministerial act or duty. An
act is ministerial if the act should be performed "[under] a given state of facts, in a
prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to
or the exercise of [the tribunal or corporation's] own judgment upon the propriety or
impropriety of the act done." The tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person must
have no choice but to perform the act specifically enjoined by law. This is opposed to a
discretionary act whereby the officer has the choice to decide how or when to perform
the duty.

In this case, there is a clear failure on petitioners' part to establish that the PMA has
the, ministerial duty to include Cadet 1CL Cudia in the list, much less award him with
academic honors and commission him to the Philippine Navy. Similar to the case of
University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, it is submitted that the PMA may
rightfully exercise its discretionary power on who may be admitted to study pursuant to
its academic freedom.

Anent the plea to direct the PMA to include Cadet 1CL Cudia in the list of graduates of
Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 and to allow him to take part in the commencement
exercises, the same was rendered moot and academic when the graduation
ceremonies pushed through on March 16, 2014 without including Cadet 1CL Cudia in
the roll of graduates.
With respect to the prayer directing the PMA to restore Cadet 1CL Cudia's rights and
entitlements as a full-fledged graduating cadet, including his diploma, awards, and
commission as a new Philippine Navy ensign, the same cannot be granted in a petition
for mandamus on the basis of academic freedom, which We shall discuss in more
detail below. Suffice it to say at this point that these matters are within the ambit of or
encompassed by the right of academic freedom; therefore, beyond the province of the
Court to decide. The powers to confer degrees at the PMA, grant awards, and
commission officers in the military service are discretionary acts on the part of the
President as the AFP Commander-in-Chief

Certainly, mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. It cannot be availed against an

official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or
judgment.66 For a writ to issue, petitioners should have a clear legal right to the thing
demanded, and there should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents to
perform the act sought to be mandated.

The same reasons can be said as regards the other reliefs being sought by petitioners,
which pertain to the HC and the CRAB proceedings. In the absence of a clear and
unmistakable provision of a law, a mandamus petition does not lie to require anyone to
a specific course of conduct or to control or review the exercise of discretion; it will not
issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty
not to do or give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law.