ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY VS. HON. JUDGE IGNACIO CAPULONG - G.R.

99327; 27 MAY
1993
FACTS:
Leonardo H. Villa, a first year law student of Ateneo de Manila University
(ADMU), died of serious
physical injuries while Bienvenido Marquez was hospitalized for acute renal failure
occasioned by the serious
physical injuries, both inflicted during the initiation rites of Aquila Legis.

Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student

Investigating Committee to
investigate and submit a report on the death of Villa within 72 hours. Respondent
students were required to
submit written statements to which they did not reply. They were placed on
preventive suspension. The
Investigating Committee found a prima facie case against respondent students for
violation of Rule 3 of the
Law School Catalogue entitled "Discipline." Respondent students were required to
file their answers to the
charge.

Del Castillo created a Disciplinary Board to hear the charges. Respondents

were informed of their
violation and ordered them to file their answers. Hearings were conducted. The
Board found them guilty of
violating Rule No. 3 which prohibits participation in hazing activities. Fr. Bernas
imposed the penalty of
dismissal on all respondent students because the Board did not impose any penalty.

Respondents filed with RTC Makati a TRO since they were currently enrolled
in the second semester of
1990-1991 centering on the lack of due process of their dismissal. RTC granted the
TRO enjoining petitioners
from dismissing the respondents. A day after the expiration of the TRO, Del
Castillo created a Special Board to
investigate the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza.
This was requested to be
stricken out by the respondents and argued that the creation of the Special Board
was totally unrelated to the
original petition which alleged lack of due process. This was granted and ordered
to reinstate the students.

ISSUE: Whether there is denial of due process against the respondent

students.

RULING:
No. There was no denial of due process. Dean Del Castillo of the Ateneo Law
School, notified and
required respondent students to submit their written statements on the incident.
Instead of filing a reply,
respondent students requested copies of the charges. The nature and cause of the
accusation were adequately
spelled out in petitioners' notices. The twin elements of notice and hearing were
present.

Respondent students argue that the instant petition under Rule 65 is

improper since they failed to file a
motion for reconsideration first before the trial court, by-passing the latter and
the Court of Appeals. It is
accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies
is when the case involves a
question of law, as in this case, where the issue is whether or not respondent
students have been afforded
procedural due process prior to their dismissal from Petitioner University.

The Court, citing Guzman v. National University enumerated the minimum

standards to be satisfied in
the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, thus:
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of
any accusation against
them;
(2) that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them
with the assistance of counsel,
if desired:
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them
(4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;
and
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee
or official designated by
the school authorities to hear and decide the case.
The petition was granted.