EPICHARIS GARCIA v.

FACULTY
ADMISSION
COMMITTEE, LOYOLA SCHOOL OF
THEOLOGY
(represented by FR. LAMBINO) (1975)
Academic Freedom
FACTS
During the summer of 1975, petitioner was
admitted at
the Loyola School of Theology, a religious
seminary, for
studies leading to an MA in Theology.
When petitioner
wanted to enroll for the same course for the
first semester
of the same year, she was barred from re-
admission to
said school as per faculty decision.
Reason stated for refusing to readmit the
petitioner: the
faculty felt that petitioner’s frequent
questions and
difficulties were not always pertinent and
had the effect of
slowing down the progress of the class;
also, the
petitioner could have tried to give the
presentation a
chance and exerted more effort to
understand the point
made before immediately thinking of
difficulties and
problems.
Petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus
for the
respondent to allow her to enroll in the
current semester.
Respondents claim that although the
petitioner was
admitted to the School to take some courses
for credit,
said admission was not an admission to a
degree program
because only the Assistant Dean of the
Ateneo de Manila
Graduate School can make such admission.
No acceptance
by the Assistant Dean was given, so that
she was not
accepted to a degree program but was
merely allowed to
take some courses for credit for the
summer.
Furthermore, Fr. Antonio B. Lambino, S.J.,
and/or the
Loyola School of Theology thru its Faculty
Admission
Committee, necessarily has discretion as to
whether to
admit and/or to continue admitting in the
said school any
particular student, considering not only
academic or
intellectual standards but also other
considerations such
as personality traits and character
orientation in relation
with other students as well as considering
the nature of
Loyola School of Theology as a seminary.
The Petition
for Mandamustherefore does not lie, as
there is no clear
duty on the part of respondent to admit the
petitioner to
take up further courses in the Loyola
School of Theology.
Also, the decision is not arbitrary, but based
on
reasonable grounds.
RULING
Mandamus does not lie in this case.
Respondent
cannot be compelled to readmit petitioner
through a
writ of mandamus.
1. The Court quoted respondent’s
memorandum, viz:
“…For respondent has noclear
dutyto so admit the
petitioner. The Loyola School of Theology
is a seminary
for the priesthood. Petitioner is admittedly
and obviously
not studying for the priesthood, she being a
lay person
and a woman. And even assuming ex gratia
argumentithat she is qualified to study
for the priesthood,
there is still no duty on the part of
respondent to admit
her to said studies, since the school has
clearly the
discretion to turn down even qualified
applicants due to
limitations of space, facilities, professors
and optimum
classroom size and component
considerations.”
There are standards that must be met. There
are polici
to be pursued. Discretion appears to be of
the essence
terms of Hohfeld's terminology, what a
student in th
position of petitioner possesses is a
privilege rath
than a right. She cannot therefore satisfy
the prime a
indispensable requisite of a mandamus
proceeding. Suc
being the case, there is no duty imposed on
the Loyola
School of Theology.
2. Moreover, there is the recognition in the
Constitution
institutions of higher learning enjoying
academic freedo
In this case, it is the freedom of the school,
the autono
of the university as a corporate body, or the
collective
liberty of an organization, rather than the
freedom of t
individual university teacher (what
academic freedom i
usually identified with,i.e., right of each
university
teacher - recognized and effectively
guaranteed by soc
- to seek and express the truth as he
personally sees it
both in his academic work and in his
capacity as a priva
citizen) that applies. The reference is to the
"institution
of higher learning" as the recipients of this
boon. The
school or college itself is possessed of such
a right. It
decides for itself its aims and objectives
and how best t
attain them. It is free from outside coercion
or
interference save possibly when the
overriding public
welfare calls for some restraint. It has a
wide sphere of
autonomy certainly extending to the choice
of students
Former President Vicente G. Sinco of the
University of
Philippines, quoting the President of the
Queen's
University in Belfast, Sir Eric
Ashby:"'The internal
conditions for academic freedom in a
universitya
that the academic staff should have de facto
control of
following functions: (i) the admission and
examinat
of students; (ii) the curricula for courses of
study
(iii) the appointment and tenure of office of
academic staff; and (iv) the allocation of
income
among the different categories of
expenditure.
Justice Frankfurter, also a former
Professor of the Harv
Law School:"It is the business of a
university to provid
that atmosphere which is most conducive to
speculatio
experiment and creation. It is an
atmosphere in which
there prevail "the four essential freedoms"
of a
university
GARCIA vs. THE FACULTY ADMISSION COMMITTEE, LOYOLA SCHOOL OF
THEOLOGY

FACTS:

Petitioner has been barred from being allowed re-admission into the respondent school, which is a
seminary for the priesthood in collaboration with the Ateneo de Manila University. Petitioner was taking
her studies leading to an M.A. in Theology at the time, but was no longer allowed to enroll in the
Academic Year of 1975-1976.

Petitioner contends that the reason behind the respondent’s refusal to re-admit her (as stated in a letter
from the respondent), which is due to the fact that her frequent questions and difficulties that were
slowing down the progress of the class, does not constitute valid legal ground for expulsion for they
neither present any violation of any of the school’s regulation, nor are they indicative of gross
misconduct. She was advised to enroll in the University of Santo Tomas Graduate School (Ecclesiastical
Faculty), where she will have to take up Philosophy (4-5 years, compared to 2 years in Ateneo) before she
will be allowed to take Theology. She was, however, allowed to take some courses for credit, free of
charge, during the summer sessions of the respondent school in 1975, but was not acknowledged to be
enrolled in any degree program.

Petitioner then filed for a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent to allow her admission.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the petitioner is deemed to possess a right to be respected by the respondent in terms being
denied re-admission?
2. Whether the Faculty Admission Committee had to authority to bar the petitioner from continuing her
studies in their institution?

RULING: Petition is dismissed

It is more often identified with the right of a faculty member to pursue his studies in his particular
specialty and thereafter to make known or publish the result of his endeavors without fear that retribution
would be visited on him in the event that his conclusions are found distasteful or objectionable to the
powers that be, whether in the political, economic, or academic establishments. For the sociologist,
Robert McIver it is "a right claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as investigator, to interpret
his findings and to communicate his conclusions without being subjected to any interference, molestation,
or penalization because these conclusions are unacceptable to some constituted authority within or
beyond the institution." As for the educator and philosopher Sidney Hook, this is his version: "What is
academic freedom? Briefly put, it is the freedom of professionally qualified persons to inquire, discover,
publish and teach the truth as they see it in the field of their competence. It is subject to no control or
authority except the control or authority of the rational methods by which truths or conclusions are sought
and established in these disciplines." 

That is only one aspect though. Such a view does not comprehend fully the scope of academic freedom
recognized by the Constitution. For it is to be noted that the reference is to the "institutions of higher
learning" as the recipients of this boon. It would follow then that the school or college itself is possessed
of such a right. It decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free from
outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.
It has a wide sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of students. This constitutional
provision is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a gradging fashion. That would be to frustrate
its purpose, nullify its intent. Former President Vicente G. Sinco of the University of the Philippines, in
his Philippine Political Law, is similarly of the view that it "definitely grants the right of academic
freedom to the university as an institution as distinguished from the academic freedom of a university
professor”.

It only remains to be added that the futility that marked the persistence of petitioner to continue her
studies in the Loyola School of Theology is the result solely of a legal appraisal of the situation before us.
The decision is not to be construed as in any way reflecting on the scholastic standing of petitioner. There
was on the part of respondent due acknowledgment of her intelligence. Nonetheless, for reasons
explained in the letter of Father Lambino, it was deemed best, considering the interest of the school as
well as of the other students and her own welfare, that she continue her graduate work elsewhere. There
was nothing arbitrary in such appraisal of the circumstances deemed relevant. It could be that on more
mature reflection, even petitioner would realize that her transfer to some other institution would redound
to the benefit of all concerned. At any rate, as indicated earlier, only the legal aspect of the controversy
was touched upon in this decision.

Note:
Due to the fact that the respondent school to was a seminary for priesthood and for men, the most
that the petitioner could claim for is a privilege, and not a right. Furthermore, she was admittedly
enrolling into a course that was not for the priesthood. Besides, even if, for the sake of argument,
she was qualified to study for the priesthood, there is still no duty on the part of the respondent to
admit her for the discretion to accept or reject qualified applicants still lies on the respondent
school.

to determine for itself on academic

grounds who may teach, what may be
taught, how
it shall be taught, and who may be admitted
to
study."
3. The decision is not to be construed as in
any way
reflecting on the scholastic standing of
petitioner. Ther
was on the part of respondent due
acknowledgment of
intelligence. Nonetheless, for reasons
explained in the
letter of Father Lambino, it was deemed
best, consider
the interest of the school as well as of the
other studen
and her own welfare, that she continue her
graduate w
elsewhere. There was nothing arbitrary in
such apprais
of the circumstances deemed relevant. At
any rate, as
indicated earlier, only the legal aspect of
the controver
was touched upon in this deci