UP BOARD OF REGENTS V. COURT OF APPEALS, GR. NO.

134625, August 31, 1999

FACTS:
Private respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine(Arokiaswamy) a citizen of
India enrolled doctoral program in UP CSSP Diliman QC, ready for oral defense with selected
panel members Drs. E. Arsenio Manuel, Serafin Quiason, Sri Skandarajah, Noel Teodoro, and
Isagani Medina

Even though a panel namely Dr. Medina noticed portions of her dissertation that was
lifted from different sources without proper acknowledgement, she was still allowed to continue
to with her oral defense. Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form. Dr. Teodoro also noted that
a revision should be submitted. Four out five gave her a passing mark with condition to
incorporate the suggestion made by the panel members.

Arokiaswamy’s graduation was approved with the pending final revised copies of her
dissertation. Arokiaswamy submitted the supposedly final revised copies however, the
suggestions were not incorporated. Her paper were later disapproved by Dr. Teodoro and Dr.
Medina.

Dean Paz attempts to exclude the private respondent in the graduating list in a letter
addressed to the Vice Chancellor for Academic, pending for clarification of her charges against
panel members and accusations relating to her dissertation, the letter did not reach on time and
the Arokiaswamy 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. A letter was sent to inform private
respondent that it was resolved by majority to withdraw your doctorates degree.

Arokiaswamy filed a petition for mandamus praying 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 She alleged that petitioners had unlawfully withdrawn her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 RTC dismissed for
lack of merit. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision and ordered to restore
her doctorates degree.

ISSUE:
WON the CA 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.

RULING:
Yes, academic freedom is guaranteed to institutions of higher learning under 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.

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.