SOPHIA 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.