PARAMETER OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN EXERCISING MANAGERIAL PREROGATIVES ON STUDENT ADMISSION, RETENTION AND DISMISSAL
Ricardo T. Santiago, PhD
The Philippines is a Third World country but majority of its constituents have never used poverty as a strong compelling reason not to send their children to school. In fact, parents usually take the pride of displaying the diplomas of their children in the living room to attest their sincere adherence to education as a vital and fundamental aspect of civilized society. Without the benefit of education, people would be unable to earn an adequate livelihood, enjoy life to the fullest, or fulfill the duties and responsibilities of good citizens.1 This is why the state has taken an active stance in promoting the education of its citizenry.2
In fact, the Constitution of the Philippines recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation building 3, thus, the state sees to it that their total personality is well taken care of.
One way to accomplish this is for the state to give priority to education, science and technology, arts and culture 4 and to establish and maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated system of education, relevant to the needs of the people and society 5, Furthermore, the state protects and promotes the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and takes appropriate steps to make such education possible to all.
In the commentary of Bernas,6 he cited that the 1987 Constitution promotes to a certain extent quality education as a demandable right enforceable in courts of law. Corollary, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that every one has the right to education.7 This is supplemented by the Supreme Court ruling that the right to education is from elementary to college as stated in the case of Venecia Villar, et. al, v. TIP, et.al.8
What cannot be stressed too sufficiently, is that among the most important social, economic and cultural rights is the right to education, not only in the elementary and high school grades but also in college level.
The right of a child to quality education is primarily charged with the responsibility of natural parents but because quality education can be expensive, Article II, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution expresses the duty of the State to support parents in achieving that goal of promoting quality education which is accessible to all.9 In view thereof, the State is subsidiarily liable in case parents, due to financial constraints, are unable to educate their children.
While education is a demandable right, yet the truth remains that not all students seeking admission to college are accepted. It seemingly appears that the school is also protected by law in terms of its rights to select and reject students seeking admission. If this contention is correct, the researcher intended to know how the rights of the students are invoked against the rights of the school which likewise can interpose its rights against the students. Furthermore, the researcher aimed to understand how do these conflicting rights, if ever, strike a happy balance between the two.
These conflicting ideas bogged down the inquisitive mind of the researcher who at the time of the conduct of the study is a faculty of the College of Liberal Arts, De La Salle University-Dasmariñas where he also serves as the President of the Faculty Association; thus, he sits in the Board of Appeals in disciplinary cases. In one end, being a second year law student, he noticed that the imposition of disciplinary measures on supposed erring students is arbitrary, more often times harsh. Consequently, he firmly believes that this study on dismissal cases of students will help iron out some legal differences between the student and the administrators in the light of the provisions of the law to instill discipline in the campus and to impose sanctions which are deemed fit for the offense committed.
The 1987 Constitution mandates the establishment and maintenance of a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels (Article XIV, Section 2(2)). Apparently, this provision does not imply that the government has no obligation to provide the same in the tertiary level. In Venecio Villar, et.al.v.TIP et. al., 135 SCRA 706, it explains that silence of the law on the obligation of the State to provide free tertiary education is a reflection of the lack of sufficient funds with which to carry out this duty to students in colleges and universities. In this connection, it clearly shows that the right to tertiary education is not a natural right but only a privilege in the standpoint of necessity. Also, college education is not fundamental to the shaping of an informed, moral, civic-minded individual.
Waugh V. Board of Trustees of University of Mississippi, et.al. 237 v.s.589, 35 s.ct. 720, states:
Tertiary education is an adjunct of civilized society, a society governed by law, therefore, all those wishing to partake of this privilege must agree to be regulated by that law and the condition it imposes.
Another law that will help one to understand the regulation and condition imposed by law on higher education is the institutional academic freedom guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution that clothes school administrators authority to determine their aims and objectives and how best to attain them without threat of coercion or interference, except, possibly when the overriding public interest calls for some restraints. As stated in Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, 68 SCRA 298, the four essential freedoms a university enjoys are the liberty to determine, based on academic grounds, who may teach, what may be taught, how shall it be taught, and who may be admitted to study, cited in U.P. Board of Regents v. Auditor General, 30 SCRA 5,20.
Another is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides that “technical and professional education should be provided on the basis of merit” (Article 26 m).
Moreover, another law is, Article XIV, Section 5 (3), 1987 Constitution which provides that “every citizen has a right to select a profession or course of study” but further stipulates that this is “subject to fair, reasonable, and equitable admission and academic requirements.” Admission, therefore, is a privilege and not a right and is discretionary upon the school, which is not charged with the legal responsibility of providing education to those who do not satisfy its admission, and requirements as ruled by the Supreme Court in Isabelo Jr. v Perpetual Help College, Inc. 227 SCRA 298.
The above cited laws and court decisions that form the laws of the land are only
few of those laws governing student admission and dismissal.
In view of the above, it must be remembered that knowing the law and implementing the law are two different things. Thus, school administrators in their decision making cannot be infalliable.
With this legal background on hand, this study aimed to know how school administrators in tertiary education exercise their management prerogative to admit and dismiss students within the ambit of academic freedom (Article XIV, Section 5 (2), 1987 Constitution) paves its way.
To the researcher’s mind, since school administrators are not all holders of law, generally speaking, thus, it makes a great sense to determine how they uphold their academic freedom but at the same time protect the best interest of their clientele. As a prospective holder of Doctor of Educational Management, the present researcher feels an urgent need to know how may management prerogatives be exercised in proper alignment with the decisions of the lower and highest court in the land. Such knowledge will not only lessen the clogging of cases in courts, prevent arbitrary decisions, minimize damages suffered by both parties due to ignorance of the law, abuse of discretionary powers, and whimsical decisions, but will also strengthen the very foundation of what higher education is meant for in terms of integrity and righteousness that it must uphold at all times.
The results of this present study, therefore, would provide directions and guidelines for good management of schools and governance of students from elementary to higher education.
The conceptual paradigm of the study is the input-process-output systems approach. The INPUT is the Parameter of academic freedom which refers to the Managerial Prerogatives of School Administrators on Student Admission, Retention and Dismissal; the PROCESS is the Review of Judicial Decisions and the review of legal mandates and jurisprudence. The OUTPUT is the Judicious Student Governance which refers to Observance of Due Process and Equal Protection Clause on Student Admission, Retention and Dismissal.
This study looks into the legality of the decisions rendered by the school administrators in handling student cases. Specifically, it wants to find out how congruent their decisions are on student admission, retention and dismissal with the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in adherence to the provisions mandated by the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitutions, Civil Code of the Philippines, Education Act of 1982, TESDA Act of 1994, and Manual of Regulations for Private Schools.
The TESDA ACT of 1994 is in keeping with the Declaration of Policy of the State to provide relevant, accessible high quality and efficient technical education in support of the development of high quality Filipino middle level manpower responsive to and in accordance with Philippine development goals and priorities. Part of its statement of goals and objectives includes the roles of public and private institutions in technical education and skills development and training syste This suggests that TESDA may recommend, student for admission to tertiary education, thus, implementing the same admission requirements and procedures. Such recommendation, however, is dependent upon the preparedness of the school to accommodate the applicants based on their existing resources.
This study reviews judicial decisions embodied in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) from 1959 to 2000 as the Supreme Court (SC) cites stare decisis along with its order whether or not the decisions of the school administrators are reversed or affirmed. The findings of this study would certainly aid the school administrators in student governance. Whether the SC decisions apply to their favor or not, school administrators should know better how to anchor their decisions within the purview of the law to avoid litigation. In the end, the review of the Supreme Court decisions would guide school administrators in understanding that academic freedom shall be invoked only within the parameters granted by law and within the spirit of due process and equal protection clause on behalf of the students.
Source : Originally Conceptualized by the Researcher
Legal documents giving light to these rights to education were reviewed such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Philippine Constitutions; New Civil Code; Educational Act of 1982; and Manual of Regulations for Private Schools and Acts on education in order to understand the bases of the court rulings.
Decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on admission, retention, and dismissal cases of students from the elementary to the tertiary level only from 1959 - 2000 were covered by this study as these were already deemed sufficient to allow an impartial and just analysis of how well the decisions of the School Discipline Board jibe with the decisions of the justices of the Supreme Court in weighing all the surrounding circumstances of the cases within the purview of the law.
Dismissal and retention cases of students resolved in the Regional Trial Court were included in the review of related literature in preparation for higher legal analysis. Nevertheless, RTC decisions are subject to the review by the Supreme Court, hence, it is only upon the affirmation of the latter that decisions in the lower courts become binding and enforceable. Moreover, inclusion of the same may mislead the school administrators as they might think that because a case happens to be decided upon by the Regional Trial Courts and Court of Appeals, respectively, they are safe basis of administrative decisions. For safety measures therefore, only Supreme Court decisions were considered as a guide for meeting or solving any cause of legal action. In view, hereof, it is advisable to exhaust all administrative remedies before litigation. Admission, retention, and dismissal cases rendered by the Supreme Court prior to 1959 were not included as no copies of SCRA had yet written at that time, thus, the period covered by this study extends only to forty six (46) years of the judicial system. A total of twenty eight (28) cases covered by this study, twenty four (24) of which are from institutions of higher learning; two (2) from high school; and two (2) from the elementary.
Breaking down these cases into their nature, sixteen (16) are on admission, one (1) on retention, and eleven (11) on dismissal.
Descriptive method and documentary analysis in collecting and analyzing cases of the Supreme Court were used. The cases were taken from the Supreme Court Annotated Reports (SCRA); the General Reports (G.R.); CD-ROM; INTERNET and LEX LIBRIS.
The Data Collection Form by Schuler was also used to classify the data into admission, retention and dismissal. Its parts include: 1) Name of Case; 2) Citation; 3) Date of Decision; 4) Plaintiff; 5) Defendant; 6) Court; 7) Opinion; 8) Author of Opinion; 9) Constitutional Law Data; 10) Statutory Law Data; 11) Prior History; 12) Facts Related to Cases; 13) Courts Reasoning; and 14) Implications for Education.
The public and private schools and state colleges and universities involved in the student admission cases, are : Loyola School of Theology; University of the Philippines College of Medicine; University of the Philippines Board of Regents; Technological Institute of the Philippines, Capitol Medical Center School of Nursing; National University; Center for Educational Measurement (2X); Philippine School of Business Administration; Capitol Medical Center, Inc.; University of San Carlos; University of the East; Mabini Colleges, Inc; Unciano Paramedical College, Inc.; Perpetual Help College of Rizal; University of San Agustin; and San Sebastian College (High School Department).
In the retention case, the University of the Philippines was the only one with such a case. Correspondingly, in the student dismissal cases, the schools involved were: Far Eastern University- Institute of Technology; Philippine Maritime Institute; Gregorio Araneta University Foundation (2X); Ateneo de Manila University (2X); University of the Philippines; Miriam College Foundation Incorporated; Buenavista Community School- Masbate, and another elementary school in Capiz but which name was not mentioned; and various public elementary schools in Cebu, which names were not specified.
These schools acted either as petitioners/appellants or respondents/appellees in admission, retention and dismissal cases.
This study used a data collection form used by Mary E. Schuler in her study concerning the legal aspects of Student Admission and Student Dismissal in Allied Health Programs in 2000 copyrighted by Bell and Howell Information and Learning Company in the United States. The Data Collection Form used by Schuler includes: 1) Name of Case; 2)Citation 3) Date of Decision; 4) Plaintiff; 5) Defendant; 6) Court; 7) Opinion; 8) Author of Opinion; 9) Constitutional Law Data; 10) Statutory Law Data; 11) Prior History; 12) Facts Related to Case; 13) Courts Reasoning; 14) Implications for Education and Students in different levels, tertiary, Using the aforementioned data collection form as guide, the data were gathered from the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) by looking for relevant and appropriate answers that would fill in the necessary spaces in the tabulation. Once completed, the researcher drew out his data needed to answer the statement of the proble There were twenty eight (28) cases reviewed and analyzed, each of which was distributed to the different columns showing the case title; nature of the case; grounds the school administrators have exercised their management prerogatives.
Copies of the SCRA and other legal documents used as legal sources for this study need not be validated as these are primary and secondary sources that are of the highest credibility that no brilliant man may dare question or defy, as the Rules of Court say “the best evidence is the document itself.” Furthermore, the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding, enforceable and executory and cannot be subject to criticism or difference of opinions by any man. It is for this reason why judicial opinions on the cases cannot be subject to anyone else's opinions as no one is higher than the Supreme Court decisions except if the law itself says that such decision is appealable to the Office of the President.
Interviews and questionnaires were not needed in the gathering of data as the legal documents themselves are sufficiently reliable and authoritative. Keen observation, nevertheless, was needed because the researcher had to follow the line of thinking of the justices based on their decisions in the twenty eight (28) cases; also the congruency of these judicial opinions with those of the school administrators was noted as they invoke their managerial prerogative within the parameter of academic freedom.
The decisions of the Supreme Court vary from case to case such that what applies
to one does not apply to the other. Thus, finding the difference of the Supreme Court decisions from those of the school administrators was done in tabular form for easy comparison. Extra care was done not to get out of the ambit of the decisions, nor to short-change them for the sake of a summarized presentation. Supreme Court decisions are not subject to statistical treatment for it might lose its spirit if not necessarily a show of disrespect. In connection, the researcher prepared tables that show how the decisions of the school administrators may be compared to those of the Supreme Court, thus, their sound discretion and knowledge of the legal precepts are relatively manifest.
In tallying the data, however, frequency, percentage and ranking were used to show the dominant grounds for the affirmation and reversal of the decisions and the dominant provisions invoked by the Supreme Court either to support or nullify the decision of school administrators.
The presentation is in tabular and textual form because this study is a documentary analysis aimed to review the Supreme Court decisions on admission, retention and dismissal cases in order to answer the problems concerning: 1)management prerogatives of school administrators on student admission, retention, and dismissal, (column 3); 2) issues and grounds considered by the Supreme Court in affirming or reversing the decisions of school administrators, (column 4); 3) legal provisions that the school administrators must uphold for good student governance, (column 5); 4) strategy that the school administrators may use in the exercise of academic freedom within the parameter of existing jurisprudence and pertinent laws, (column 6).
In six columns, the twenty eight (28) cases are briefly stated, analyzed and interpreted in the light of the case syllabi taken from the Supreme Court Annotated Reports (SCRA). There is no need for a personal interpretation of these data because unlike in most studies, Supreme Court decisions are not subject to interpretation of anyone, neither by the Regional Trial Court nor by the Court of Appeals as they are themselves complete in facts, final, binding and executory.
Similarities and Differences of Decisions Between the School
Administrators and the Supreme Court
Case Title Circumstances of the Case Defense of School Administrators Decisions of the Supreme Court
1. Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology A lay person and a woman wants to pursue M.A. in Theology Allowed to attend classes for course credit but not for a degree program. Academic freedom invoked. AFFIRMED
Academic freedom granted by the Constitution to institutions is accorded full respect.
2. Villar, Recitis, et al. vs. Technological Institute of the Philippines Students with failing grades exercised their constitutional right to free speech and peaceably Students were expelled not only for failing grades but because they staged a rally. REVERSED
Academic freedom enjoyed by institutions cannot be utilized to discriminate students from freedom to assembly.
3. Tangonan vs. Judge Cruz Paño Capitol Medical Center School of Nursing, et al. A student was admitted as second year student in Nursing despite her incomplete requirements. She flunked one subject and attempted to bribe a dean. Petitioner lacks valid credentials and has a failing grade in one subject, also did not complete the prescribed clinical experience, thus, refused to re-enroll her. AFFIRMED
Academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations are valid grounds for refusing reenrollment, an observance of academic freedom.
4. Guzman, Urbiztondo, et al. vs. National University Students with poor scholastic records failed to enroll on time and engaged in boycotts & other activities with no permit. Students were refuse re-enrolment because they were believed to be guilty of acts inimical to the school. The activities they held disturbed classes. REVERSED
The university had never conducted proceedings to determine the participation of students in boycotts, thus, deprivation of due process.
5. Tablarin, Ciriaco, et al. vs. Gutierrez, Quisumbing, et.al The petitioner either did not take or did not successfully take NMAT required by the Board of Medical Education. Upgrading the quality of those admitted to the student body of the medical schools is sought by selectivity in the process of admission. AFFIRMED
Education is made accessible to all who qualify under fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements in medical schools.
6. Alcuaz, Alindayu, Ang, et al. vs. Philippine School of Business Administration- Q.C., Lim, et.al The students had a direct participation in the commission of tumultuous and anarchic acts and they were joined in by their teachers as intervenors. Hence, they were denied of re-enrolment and employment (teachers). The school invoked Par. 137 Manual of Regulations for Private School that says . . .. a student is enrolling for the entire semester only xxx; after which the school is no longer under obligation to re-enroll him.
In the case of the teachers, the school believed that their written contracts are for one semester only. REVERSED
The students and the teachers were denied due process of law because when they explained their cause of action in writing the school did not hear their side anymore believing that no contract existed between them.
7. Capitol Medical Center, Inc. and Dr. Celemente, vs. the Court of Appeals, Hon. Salvador, Valenzuela, et al. The school administrators closed the school when the students joined their teachers on strike. The teachers by refusing to teach, and the students by refusing to attend classes made the operation of the Capitol Medical Center futile and untenable, thus, the latter closed the school. AFFIRMED
The school is under no contract with the respondents to allow the school open for the entire duration of the course of the students.
Their contract is for the entire semester only, not for the entire course (Sec.4 Par.137 of the Manual of Regulation for Private School.)
8. Licup, Tabasa, Cairo vs. the University of San Carlos, and Salazar The school moved for a 9% increase of tuition fee but it was vehemently blocked by students’ demonstration as they barricaded the entrances and exits of USC to prevent the students from attending classes. The institution has a contractual obligation to afford students to complete the course they seek to pursue except when they commit a serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standards. AFFIRMED
The students were not deprived due process of law as claimed. The penalty imposed upon them was non-re-admission and not expulsion, thus, appears to be the most decent under the University Handbook.
9. Department of Education, Culture and Sports and Director of Center for Educational Measurement vs. San Diego and Judge Capulong The respondent is a graduating student in UE. He took the National Medical Admission Test three times but still wanted to take his fourth chance. UE refused on the basis of DECS Order no.12 series of 1972 which allows an examinee to take it only three times. The school upholds the Constitutional provision that “every citizen has the right to choose a course of study subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic requirements. AFFIRMED
Even those who have qualified may still not be accommodated in already crowded medical schools, there is all the more reason to bar those who have been tested and found wanting.
10. Non, Magana, Agura, et al. Vs. Dames II and Mabini Colleges, Inc. After leading and participating in student protest, the petitioners were denied readmission or re-enrollment to the respondent school. Their academic deficiencies do not warrant re-admission. REVERSED
The decision to refuse the petitioners’ re-enrollment due to failing grades was a mere after thought.
There was no due investigation that could serve as basis for disciplinary action.
Another consideration is Par.137 of the Manual of Reg. For Private School – the termination of contract doctrine is overturned, thus; when a college student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester”. It is clear that it is intended merely to protect schools wherein tuition fees are collected and paid in installment basis.
11. Reyes, Lazaro, et al. Vs. The Court of Appeals, The Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines, et al. The petitioners composed the UP College of Medicine which has the power to admit or deny students to the College. The herein petitioners in the exercise of their function as faculty prescribed NMAT cut-off score of 90 percentile without the University Councils’ approval. Such prescription is against the Board of Regents’ (BOR) cut-off score of 70 percentile with the concurrence of the University Council (UC). The issue to be resolved here is – “Whether or not the BOR could validly direct the petitioners to admit the students to the College of Medicine. AFFIRMED
The power vested in the BOR is governance and the general powers of administration of the university. The University Council, on the other hand, has the power to fix the admission requirements to any college in the university. The University Code grants to the College Faculty the power to determine the entrance requirements of the College subject to the approval of the autonomus U.C. Failure to get the approval of the latter will render the power of UP CM inefficancious.
12. Unciano Paramedical College, Inc., Unciano Sr., et al. vs. the Court of Appeals, Tayao – Jaguros, Villegos et al. Two students of the petitioners would like to initiate a student council but was denied by the school. The RTC and CA affirmed the decision against the school, hence UPC appealed for a review on certiorari before the Supreme Court. The school relied on Alcuaz doctrine which allows the school to refuse admission of a student after one semester since the contract has already expired. REVERSED
The school should apply the Non doctrine which states that “once a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolled for the entire school year. (Sec.9 of Edu. Act of 1982).
13. University of the Philippines Board of Regents and Caoili, vs. Ligot-Telan and Nadal The Board of Regents wanted to implement its suspension penalty on Nadal but it could not do so because of the preliminary injunction issued by the court. Nadal withheld information on income in his application for Socialized Tuition Fee Assistance Program (STFAP) benefits that his Mom was a TNT in USA and was supporting the education of his brother with the help of another son. AFFIRMED
The matter of admission of students is within the ambit of academic freedom. Denial of admission to a student may arise from the imposition upon him of administrative disciplinary sanction.
14. Isabelo, Jr. vs. Perpetual Help College of Rizal, Inc., and Department of Education, Culture and Sports The petitioner was dropped from the role of the graduating class because he had deficiencies in his CMT course. In truth, as an officer, of the respondents student council, he opposed the tuition fee increased and other school charges. The respondent school invoked its academic freedom that Nadal was accepted conditionally pending the completion of his CMT, in which he failed. REVERSED
Academic freedom is a privilege of a school but it has to be exercised responsibly.
The school must consider the enrollment of the student as for the entire period required in order to complete his course.
15. University of San Agustin, Inc., Cajilig, Abioda, et. al. vs. Court of Appeals, Lara Magante, et al. Nursing students of the petitioners were required to maintain an 80% average to be eligible to enroll for the next semester. However, the respondent students did not reach said required grade, ‘thus, this mandamus proceeding. The school has the right to refuse the enrollment of a student and such refusal falls within the academic freedom clause of the Constitution. AFFIRMED
Mandamus will not lie to compel the school authorities to graduate a student who has failed to comply with disciplinary and academic rules of the school as the said writ cannot review or control the exercise of discretionary powers.
16. San Sebastian College, vs. Court of Appeals and Reynaldo Borja y Torres Borja was denied admission to third year high school because he failed in three subjects. Allegedly, he was reconsidered in one subject and also passed the other two subjects in a summer class in another school but he failed to obtain a permit from San Sebastian College –(SBC). SBC denied his admission because it observes Dept. Order No. 8 which discredit units earned from unauthorized summer classes. Also SBC has a ruling that any students who have a total failure of three subjects will be denied re-enrolment, unless, they are willing to repeat the whole year. AFFIRMED
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of SBC as their ruling on promotion is approved by the then Ministry of Education Culture and Sports.
Summary of Findings
1. Grounds Invoked by School Administrators in Exercising their Management Prerogatives
Management prerogatives on admission were invoked by the school administrators when they decided on cases involving: a) a lay person and a woman who wanted to pursue an MA in Theology in a seminary for priesthood; b) students who invoked their right to free speech and peaceful assembly due to their failing grades in several subjects; c) a nursing student who was temporarily admitted subject to the submission of an honorable dismissal and of passing marks for the flunked subject; e) a medical student who did not successfully hurdle the NMAT as a condition for securing certificates of eligibility for admission; d) a student alleged to have a poor academic performance due to his engagement in leading boycott of classes; f) students who have academic deficiency engaged in demonstrations to exercise their freedom of expression and assembly were joined in by faculty intervenors; g) students joined their teachers in a strike which resulted to closure of the school; h) students who blockaded and barricaded the entrances and exits in protest of the 9% increase of tuition fee; I) a medical student who failed NMAT test three times; j) students who led and participated in protest, thereby incurred marked academic deficiency; k) imposition of 90% passing grade by the faculty of the College of Medicine as against the 70% passing grade by the Board of Regents; l) students who initiated an organization of student council; m) a student who withheld relevant information concerning his application for Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program; n) a student who opposed the school plan of increasing tuition fees and other school charges but with alleged academic deficiency; o) nursing students who failed to maintain an 80% average to be eligible for re-enrollment; and p) a student who had academic deficiency but one of his subjects was reconsidered by the school and the two others were cross-enrolled and passed them.
Management prerogative on retention was invoked against a case involving – a student who petitioned that his name be included in the roster of the graduating class and that two cadet officers be relieved.
Management prerogatives on dismissal was invoked on cases concerning : a) students questioning the authority of the school in conducting an administrative investigation on acts committed outside school premises; b)students who distributed leaflets to get student support to contest the 15% tuition fee increase; c) students who failed to abide by the condition set by the school regarding the use of school facilities to hold student assembly; d) students who criticized and lambasted the school administration on its decision to merge two institutes; e) a student who slapped a kitchen helper at the school cafeteria; f) students who participated in hazing activities; g) a student who committed plagiarism in her dissertation; h) students who are campus journalists and in that capacity wrote “Ang Magasing Pampanitikan” with a cover title “Libog at Iba Pang Tula” , I) elementary pupils who refused to salute the flag as it is contrary to their religious belief as Jehovah’s witnesses (3 similar cases, 1959, 1960 and 1995).
2. Issues and Grounds Invoked by the Supreme Court in Affirming and Reversing the Decisions of the School Administrators
Decisions of the school administrators are usually affirmed by the Court under these issues and grounds: a) academic standards set by the school are followed meticulously; b) the disciplinary regulations are fair, reasonable and just/equitable; c) forfeiture of contractual right due to serious breach of discipline or failure to maintain the required academic standards; d) proper observance of the school’s right to investigate on acts committed outside the school (true test is its effect upon the morale and efficiency of the school in promoting good order, welfare and advancement of the students); f) revocation of a degree conferred due to fraud; g) dismissal due to free speech is sustained only if it involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others; h) if decisions are based on school policies approved by the Department of Education.
Conversely, decisions of the school administrators are reversed by the Supreme Court under these conditions: a) violation of constitutional rights (denial of due process and equal protection clause; Bill of Rights on First Amendment); b) discretionary powers are gravely abused; c) school rules and regulations clash with any of the legal provisions; 3); d) penalty imposed is inappropriate based on the offense committed; e)misinterpretation of the enrollment termination (admission); f) failure of the school to observe the correlative duty to exercise academic freedom responsibly; act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith (Article 19, Civil Code); g) suspension or expulsion of a student on the basis of an article that she has written.
3. Similarities and Differences of Decisions between the School Administrators and the Supreme Court
Similarities of decisions between the school administrators, and those of the Supreme Court are gleaned from these affirmed cases on admission: a) assertion of academic freedom relating to what courses to take; b) determination of admission requirements and disqualifications there from (academic delinquency and violations of disciplinary regulations); c) upgrading of the quality of education through selectivity process in medical schools; d) refusal of the school to remain open until graduation of protestors; e) observance of due process on a serious breach of discipline; f) denial of admission to those who did not pass the National Admission Test; g) dishonesty meted by disciplinary sanction; and h) denial of promotion due to unauthorized attendance in a summer class.
On retention, forfeiture of contractual right due to failure to maintain the required academic standards; on dismissal, a) upholding the right of the school to discipline students who committed acts outside the school for the protection of its morale and efficiency; b) refund of tuition fee in accordance with due process; c) disbarment due to hazing activities which initiation rites resulted to death and injury; d) plagiarism in a dissertation as a serious threat to integrity; and e) refusal to salute the flag due to religious belief (overturned in 1995).
Differences of decisions of school administrators from those of the Supreme Court are evident on these admission cases which have been reversed due to : a) improper invocation of academic freedom to discriminate students from freedom to rally; b) failure to conduct proceedings to determine the participation of students in boycott; c) refusal to hear explanation of students why they joined their teachers in a rally; d) refusal to admit protesting students due to failing grades that was a mere after thought; e) denial of admission after a semester notwithstanding that a registered student is enrolled for the entire school year (new ruling); and f) denial of enrollment to a student who wants to complete his course for the entire period (new ruling).
Regarding dismissal cases, decisions of school administrators were reversed because they were found to be different from the Supreme Court’s due to : a) deprivation of PMI Cadets from their constitutional right to defend themselves; b) imposition of harsh penalty on students who joined in an illegal assembly; c) suspension of students for joining a strike; d) suspension of journalist students solely on the basis of the articles they have written (except if those materials disrupt class work or involve substantial order meant to invade the rights of others).
To sum up, the affirmed cases are 9 on admission, 1 on retention, and 6 on dismissal, having a total of 16. On the one hand, the reversed cases are 7 on admission and 5 on dismissal, with a total of 12, thus, 28 cases in all.
4. Dominant Grounds for the Affirmation and the Reversal of the Decisions
The dominant grounds for the affirmation of the decisions of the school administrators by the Supreme Court are: a) academic freedom to impose the schools’ admission requirements; b) setting the academic standards of the school as a means of upgrading the quality of education it provides, and c) imposition of disciplinary regulations. These common grounds are evident in admission and retention only. On dismissal, the dominant grounds favored by the Supreme Court are: a) disciplinary sanction (hazing, plagiarism, unauthorized cross enrollment); b) defiance of Department Order No.8- saluting the flag, singing of the national anthem, and reciting the patriotic pledge.
For the reversal of decisions, the dominant grounds on admission and dismissal are: a) curtailment of the student rights to rally/boycott/strike; b) deprivation of due process- right to be heard; c) conflicting interpretation on the contractual enrollment right; and d) writing articles believed to be contrary to morals.
5. Legal Provisions on Student Admissions, Retention and Dismissal that School Administrators must Uphold for Good Governance
For good governance, the legal provisions upheld by school administrators are those found in their student handbook, University Code; the Constitution of the Philippines (1935, 1973, 1987), Education Act of 1982, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools; the Civil Code of the Philippines; Department Orders, and decided cases of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (stare decisis).
6. Dominant Legal Provisions Invoked by the Supreme Court in Affirming and Reversing the Decision of School Administrators
The dominant legal provisions invoked by the Supreme Court in affirming and reversing the decisions of school administrators are: a)Article IV, Sec. 5, Par. 2 – 1987 Constitution (academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning; b)R.A. 2382 Sec. 5 (a and f) as amended, and MECS Order No. 52, s. 1985 (promotion of quality education by requiring students to pass admission test or securing certificates of eligibility for admission); c) Sec. 4, Par. 137, Manual of Regulations for Private School (registration in a school means enrollment for the entire semester) – overturned SC decision, new ruling.. enrollment for the entire period up to graduation; d) DECS Order No. 12, s. 1972 (disqualification from taking the test again after three failure; e) Par. 145 of the Manual of Regulation for Private Schools (penalty shall not be imposed upon any students, except for cause); f) Sec. 9, Par. 2, Education Act of 1982 B.P. Blg. 232; Art XIV Sec 5(3), 1987 Const.; (right of students to freely choose their field of study and to continue their course up to graduation); g) Art. 19 of the Civil Code (every person must in the exercise of his right and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith); h) Dept. Order No. 8 of MECS (discredits unauthorized summer classes); i) Art. 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (everyone has the right to education); j) Dept. No.8, s. 1955, DECS; R.A. No. 1265, (an act making flag ceremony compulsory in all educational institutions); k) Art. III, Sec. 4, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution (no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redness of grievances); and l) University Code/Rules and Regulations/Student Handbook (fixing admission requirements; disciplinary grounds and academic delinquency).
7. Strategy that may be used for the Exercise of Academic Freedom within the Parameter of Existing Jurisprudence and Pertinent Laws
In the exercise of academic freedom, the school administrators must strategize the same within the parameter set by existing jurisprudence and pertinent laws. Academic freedom is granted to institutions of higher learning to determine who to teach, what to teach, and how to teach it; what aims and objectives to formulate, and how to attain them; but the Supreme Court has cautioned that it should not be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion, otherwise, that would frustrate the purpose of academic freedom and nullify its intent. Enjoyment of academic freedom includes the exercise of management prerogatives to allow a free hand on matters concerning admission, retention and dismissal. Administrative decisions should be in keeping with the observance of due process, both procedural and substantive in nature with an end of new or good student governance.
On the basis of the findings, the researcher was led to formulate these conclusions:
1. Management prerogative on admission and retention is invoked by school administrators depending on the academic qualifications of students for enrollment and his ability to cope with the academic standards set by the school. On dismissal, the decision is focused on violations of disciplinary obligations. If management prerogatives are exercised judiciously by school administrators, the Supreme Court does not pass a review unto their decisions except if there is arbitrariness, collusions and fraud thereof.
2. In a wholistic view, the Supreme Court affirms school decisions if the academic freedom granted to institutions of higher learning is exercised within the ambit of fair play. Conversely, decisions are reversed if the students are denied of due process, if the penalty imposed is inappropriate to the act committed and if the legal provisions afforded for the protection of both the school and the students are misconstrued.
In affirming and reversing decisions of the school administrators, the verdict pronounced by the trial and the appellate courts sometimes differ from those of the Supreme Court because the circumstances surrounding every case are unique and distinct from each other. Given this premise, errors on the part of the school cannot be avoided but can be remedied. In a number of occasions, though, the decisions of the school administrators show similarities to those of the Supreme Court on matters relating to the schools academic freedom on imposition of admission requirements, academic standards and disciplinary measures. Remarkable difference in decisions, however, is on matters concerning the misuse of academic freedom to prevent students from their freedom of expression and to deprive them of due process.
3. The Supreme Court accords the institutions autonomy and full respect in the exercise of academic freedom.
4. Good student governance is achievable when the school promulgates rules and regulations and implements the same in accordance with the tenets of the Constitution and other special laws meant to protect the rights of all parties concerned. The legal provisions on admission, retention and dismissal are within the discretionary powers of school officials who are vested academic freedom, a privilege, hence, not absolute in character that can be used capriciously.
5. The academic freedom granted by the Constitution to school administrators need be exercised harmoniously with the other provisions of law.
6. The parameter of academic freedom is set within the ambit of jurisprudence and pertinent laws. Observance of due process is both procedural and substantive, and evidence must be present and duly considered to support the decision. Penalty imposed should be reasonable and applicable to all students guilty of the same offense.
Guided by the conclusions of this study, the researcher offers the following recommendations:
1. To school administrators, exercise academic freedom fairly, reasonably and equitably. In administrative proceedings, exercise due process but refrain from rigorous requirements of procedural due process and cross-examination. Take note that opportunity to see the written statement or order used as basis of an order is not a denial of due process. Furthermore, familiarize yourselves with jurisprudence and other pertinent laws concerning admission and dismissal to lessen if not totally eradicate the reversal of decisions. Read and update on decisions of the Supreme Court especially the “stare decisis.”
Provide the legal support in times of controversy to expedite the discharge of cases judiciously.
2. To the students, invoke your constitutional rights to strike a happy balance with the academic freedom of schools. If decisions are found arbitrary, elevate your case to the Commission on Higher Education, Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals and finally to the Supreme Court to serve the ends of justice. Remember, though, that exercise of free speech does not tantamount to dismissal but may be a subject of disciplinary measures if handled irresponsibly.
3. To parents, invoke the right of your child to choose any field of study he wants to pursue, and his right to enroll for the entire period up to graduation, except for academic delinquency and violations of disciplinary rules.
4. To school authorities, especially the President, Registrar and Deans of Student Affairs, Discipline Coordinators, etc., review your school policies and implement them in keeping with the recent rulings of the Supreme Court to avoid strain relationship and litigation. It is also imperative to follow due process of law on cases of protest, general assembly, barricade, organization of student council and the like.
5. To the Commission on Higher Education, review the curriculum of the Legal Aspect of Education in the graduate/postgraduate level to afford students the opportunity to understand the implementation of the provisions of Education Act of 1982 and the Manual of Regulations for Private School and not to be confined only within the letters of the law.
6. To the legislators, pass laws which extend the coverage and application of due process and equal protection clause to keep pace with the present cultural values of the youth (such as respect for gay rights, protection to pregnant students to name a few. Such openness and reasonableness will pave the way to fair and just school rules and regulations.
7. To future researchers and law enthusiasts, use this research as guide or basis for legal discussions and school disputes. Also, use this study as a stepping stone to unveil other decisions of the lower court not covered by this present study, thus, protection of student rights can be better assured.
For future studies, it is recommended that a comprehensive research be conducted to show how decisions of school administrators differ from those of the lower courts to see where disparity takes place. Hence, the school and the students’ cause of action may be safeguarded, not to mention its contribution to judicious student governance that will pave its way to amicable settlement of cases.
Dizon, Amado C.Education Act of 1982 Annotated Updated, Quezon City: Rex Printing
Company, Inc., 1990.
Dizon, Amado C. Law and Education, Quezon Ctiy: Rex Printing Co., Inc., 1992.
Dizon, Amado C. The Law on School and Students Quezon City: The Philippine Labor
Relation Journal, 1976.
Gonzales, Bro. Andrew. Laws on Education and the Private School Administrator,
Quezon City: Phoenix Pub. House, Inc., 1992.
Harris, Myrna A. Legal Research Fundamental Principles. New Jersey : Prentice Hall,
Kaplan, William A., Lee, Barbara A. The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive guide to the Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making. 3rd ed., San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Mamchak and Mamchak, School Administrator’s Encyclopedia, 1982.
Van Dalen, Deobold B., Understanding Educational Research: An Introduction,
4th edition, New York: Mc Graw-Hill Hill: Hill Book Company, 1979.
B. Decided Cases of the Regional Trial Court
ELENA VILLEGAS through VICTORIA VILLEGAS and TED MAGALLANES
through JACINTA MAGALLANES, petioners, vs UNCIANO PARAMEDICAL
COLLEGE, INC, and MIRANDO C. UNCIANO SR., THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES, DR. EVELYN MORAL, LAUREANA VITUG, DOMINADOR
SANTOS, and MS EDITHA MORA, respondents.
Civil Case No. 90-52745
IAN DEXTER R. MARQUEZ, et. Al., plaintiffs vs. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE,
INC, and MAURICIA HERRERA, defendants.
Civil Case no. 291-30549
Mark Cabrera vs University of Sto. Tomas. Civil Case No. 95-74298
UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST V. UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST STUDENT
GOVERNMENT. Civil Case No. 91-58495
C. Decided Cases of the Supreme Court
Allen F. Barber, Donald Steven Hill, et. al. v. Wendell G. Hardway, J.I. Turner, et. al.,
No. 12600 U.S.
Bernard H. Greenhill v. Ray V. Bailey, No. 74-1630, U.S.
Catherine S. Healy et. al. v. F. Don James, et. al., 408 U. S. 169, 33L Ed 2d 266, 92 S Ct
2338, No. 71-452
Dixon, v. Alabama State Board of Education (VA, CA), No. 18641, U.S.
Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology, 68 SCRA 298
Dorothy Gaspar v. John C. Bruton, No. 74-1197-U.S.
Grove City college v. Bell, 465 vs. 555 (1984)
Isabelo Jr. v. Perpetual help College, Inc. 227 SCRA 591
Jon F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
District, et al., 393 U.S. 503.
Nathan Zucker, Jack Orentzel v. Adolph Panitz, James K. Bishop, et al., No. 68 Cir. 1339, U.S.
Ortega vs. Adanedo (CA, 55 O.G. 1214)
Raymond Scoville, Merrill Scoville, et. al., v. Board of Educ. of Joliet Township High
School Dist. 204, Country of Will, et. al., No. 17190, U.S.
Tan v. Court of Appeals, 199 SCRA 21
U.P. Board of Regents v. Auditor General 30 SCRA 5
Yap Chin Fan, et. at., v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 90063
D. Legal Documents
Article II, Section 13 and 17, 1987 Philippine Constitution
Article III, Sec. 8, 1987 Phil. Constitution
Article XIV, Sec. 2(1), Sec. 5(2), 1987 Phil. Constitution
Article 204, The Child and Youth Welfare Code, PD 603.
EDCOM Reports, Congressional Comm. on Educ. of 1991 : Making Education and
G.R. NO. 75412, December 5, 1986
MECS Order No. 52, (2) s. 1985
Political Law Bar Examinations, 1987
30 SCRA 5, 20.68 SCRA 227.
Section 28, Article IV, The New Nursing Law of 1991, RA No. 7164
The Child and Youth Welfare Code, PD 603
The New Nursing Law of 1991, RA 7164 Art. IV, Sec. 23.
UCLA C ode of Procedure Regarding Student Conduct, Sept. 4, 1969.
E. Published and Unpublished Studies
Abt, Sandra G. “A History of the changes in the Policies and Practices of Student Control
and Discipline in the Public Schools of New York State”. Published Dissertation, New York University, August 1993.
Bishop, Joseph George, :Legal Issues in the 1990’s: An Analysis of Future Legal Problems Facing Student Affairs Offic ers as Perseived by Chief Student Affairs and Chief Executive Officers of the United States Colleges and Universitites, Published Dissertation, the George Washington University, 1993.
Dowling, Sandra E. “A Historical analysis of the Legal Aspects of Suspension and
Expulsion from Arizona Public Schools”, Published Dissertation, Northern University, 1994.
Elleven, Russel Keith, “Student Legal Issues Confronting Metropolitant Institutions of Higher Education (Urban Education. Published ED.D. Dissertation. University of North Texas, 199__.
Everett, Thomas, “An Analysis of Administrative Dissertation. Selected Student’s Rights
Decisions of the United States Supreme court”, Published Dissertation, the University of Tennessee, 1993.
Hughes, Sean, “The U.S. Constitution and the Student: A Decade of Change”, Published
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1992.
Lane, Robert Wheeler, “beyond the School House Gate: Fall Speech and the Inculcation
of Values”, Published Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, 1992.
Littell, Richard Rilen, II, “Free Expression Rights of Students in Newspy and Other
Curricular Activities- Legal Analysis and Study of Recognition of Those Rights by Selected Ohio High School Principals, Published Dissertation, Miami University, 1993.
Lowry, Robert A. “An Analysis of Court Cases Concerning the Authority of Colleges and Universities to Establish Policies Pertaining to the Admission, Dismissal, Control and Graduation of Students”, Published Dissertation, University of Pittsburg, 1970.
Rogers, Erin Logue, “Judicial Review of Admission, Dismissal, and Control of Students in Higher Education, “Published Dissertation, University of Pittsburg, USA, 1999.
Santiago, Ricardo T., “Supreme Court Decisions on Dismissal Cases of School Personnel: Their Implications for Educational Administration.” Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, 1987.
Wilson, Angela Barnes “Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools vs. Mergens: Virginia Secondary School Principals’ Awareness of the Issues and Perceptions of the Impact”, Published dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1992.
Brown v. Board of Education. [Online]. Available: http://www.aclu.org/students/slequal.
[Online]. Available: http://www.geocities.com/lakweeda 2/student rights.htm
[Online]. Available: http://www.nmu.edu/www-sam/deanostu/rts and resp.htm
Supreme Court Cases on Student Admission
1. [G.R. No. L-40779, November 28, 1975.]
EPICHARIST T. GARCIA, petitioner, VS. THE FACULTY ADMISSION COMMITTEE, LOYOLA SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY, represented by FR. ANTONIO B. LAMBINO, respondent.
2. [G.R. No. L-69198. April 17, 1985.]
VENECIO VILLAR, INOCENCIO F. RECITIS, NOVERTO BARRETO, RUFINO G. SALCON JR., EDGARDO DE LEON JR., REGLOBEN LAXAMANA, and ROMEO GUILATCO JR., petitioners, VS. TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES (TIP)
3. [G.R. No. L-45157, June 27, 1985.]
MELY TANGONAN, petitioner, VS. Hon. Judge ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER SCHOOL OF NURSING, THELMA N. CLEMENTE, SENAMAR L. PURA and ADELAIDA SULIT, respondents.
4. [G.R. No. L-68288, July 11, 1986.]
DIOSDADO GUZMAN, ULYSSES URBIZTONDO, and ARIEL RAMACULA, petitioners, VS. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY and
DOMINGO L. JHOSCSON, respondents.
5. [G.R. No. 78164. July 31, 1987.]
TERESITA TABLARIN, MA. LUZ CIRIACO, MA. NIMFA B. ROVIRA, EVANGELINA S. LABAO, petitioners, VS. The Honorable Judge ANGELINA S. GUTIERREZ, The Honorable Secretary LOURDES QUISUMBING, and the CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, respondents.
6. [G.R. L-76353, May 2, 1988.]
SOPHIA ALCUAZ, MA. CECILIA ALINDAYU, BERNADETTE ANG, IRNA ANONAS, MA. REMEDIOS BALTAZAR, CORAZON BUNDOC, JOHN CARMONA, ANNA SHIELA DIÑOSO, RAFAEL ENCARNACION, ET. AL., petitioners, VS. PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, Quezon City Branch (PSBA), DR. JUAN D. LIM, Atty. BENJAMIN P. PAULINO, et al., respondents.
7. [G.R. No. 82499, October 13, 1989.]
CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., and DRA. THELMA NAVARETE CLEMENTE, petitioners, VS. The COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. IGNACIO SALVADOR, MONINA REYES-VALENZUELA, PABLO L. DAMASO, LINA M. ABLANG, et al., respondents.
8. [G.R. No. 85839, October 19, 1989.]
EMMANUEL S. LICUP, NOEL F. TABASA, and JOEL MARC CAIRO, petitioners, VS. The UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS (USC), FR. RODERICK SALAZAR, JR., SVD, respondents.
9. [G.R. No. 89572, December 21, 1989.]
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) and DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT, petitioners, VS. ROBERTO REY C. SAN DIEGO and Judge TERESITA DIZON-CAPULONG, respondents.
10. [G.R. No. 89317, May 20, 1990.]
ARIEL NON, REX MAGANA, ALVIN AGURA, NORMANDY OCCIANO, JORGE DAYAON, LOURDES BANARES, BARTOLOME IBASCO, et al., petitioners, VS. Hon. SANCHO DAMES II, and MABINI COLLEGES, INC., respondents.
11. [G.R. No. 94961, February 25, 1991.] [G.R. No. 96491, February 25,
Dean MARITA V.T. REYES, Dra. JOSEPHINA A. LAZARO, and other petitioners/members of the Faculty Staff of the University of the Philippines College of Medicine, petitioners, VS. The COURT OF APPEALS, The BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, Hon. JOSE V. ABUEVA, Hon. ERNESTO DOMINGO, LUZ V. TUNGPALAN, JULIE MIRANDA, MARICAR BLANCHE DECANO, ATENODORO RUIZ, JR., EDMOND BENNET MULDONG, et al., respondents.
12. [G.R. No. 100335, April 7, 1993.]
UNCIANO PARAMEDICA L. COLLEGE, INC., MIRANDA C. UNCIANO, SR., DOMINADOR SANTOS and EDITHA MORA, petitioners, VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS, Hon. LOURDES K. TAYAO-JAGUROS, ELENA VILLEGAS thru VICTORIA VILLEGAS, and TED MAGALLANES thru JACINTA MAGALLANES, respondents.
13. [G.R. No. 110280, October 21, 1993.]
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS and DR. OLIVIA C. CAOILI , petitioners, VS. Hon. ELSIE LIGOT-TELAN and RAMON P. NADAL, respondents.
14. [G.R. No. 103142, November 8, 1993.]
MANUELITO A. ISABELO, JR., petitioner, VS. PERPETUAL HELP COLLEGE OF RIZAL, INC., and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondents.
15. [G.R. No. 100588, March 7, 1994.]
UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA ASUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, petitioners, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of A.M. HO, Ma. E. Magante, R.C. Sancho, M.K. So & B. Cainoy, respondents.
16. [G.R. No. 84401, May 15, 1991]
SAN SEBASTIAN COLLEGE, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND REYNALDO BORJA y TORRES, respondents.
Supreme Court Cases on Student Retention
1. [G.R. No. L-28971, January 28, 1983.]
ARLEO E. MAGTIBAY, appelant, VS. Lt. Col. SANTIAGO GARCIA and Cadet Colonel MARCELO JAVIER, respondents.
Supreme Court Cases on Student Dismissal
1. [G.R. No. L- 45551, February 16, 1982.]
JOSE S. ANGELES and GILBERTO G. MERCADO, in his capacity as Dean of Institute of Technology, FEU, petitioners, VS. Hon. RAFAEL S. SISON, EDGARDO PICAR and WILFREDO PATAWARAN, respondents.
2. [G.R. No. L-58610, September 30, 1982.]
BABELO BERIÑA, MARILOU ELAGDON, ERNESTO ROBERTO and JESUS SORIAO, petitioners, VS. PHILIPPINE MARITIME INSTITUTE, TOMAS CLOMA and JAIME CLOMA, respondents.
3. [G.R. No. 62270, May 21, 1984.]
CRISPIN MALABANAN, EVELIO JALOS, BEN LUTHER LUCAS, SOTERO LEONERO, and JUNE LEE, petitioners, VS. Hon. ANASTACIO D. RAMENTO, in his capacity as Director of the National Capital Region of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, The GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, GONZALO DEL ROSARIO, TOMAS B. MESINA, ATTY. LEONARDO PADILLA, et al., respondents.
4. [G.R. No. L-62297, June 19, 1985.]
CARMELO A. ARREZA, LONESTO G. OIDEM, JACOB F. MEIMBAN, and EDGARDO S. FERNANDO, petitioners, VS. The GREGORIO ARANETA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION, TOMAS B. MESINA, JOSE B. LALOY, and RODOSENDO GALVANTE, respondents.
5. [G.R. No. L-56180, October 16, 1986.]
ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY, petitioners, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES ROMEO G. GUAZON and TERESITA REGALADO, respondents.
6. [G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993.]
ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY, FATHER JOAQUIN BERNAS, S.J., DEAN CYNTHIA ROXAS-DEL CASTILLO, JUDGE RUPERTO KAPUNAN, JR., JUSTICE VENICIO ESCOLIN, FISCAL MIGUEL ALBAR, ATTYS. MARCOS HERRAS, FERDINAND CASIS, JOSE CLARO TESORO, RAMON CAGUIOA and RAMON ERENETA, petitioners, VS. Hon. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, ZOSIMO MENDOZA, JR., ERNEST MONTECILLO, ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO AMADO SABBAN, DALMACIO LIM, JR., MANUEL ESCALONA and JUDE FERNANDEZ, respondents.
7. [G.R. No. 134625, August 31, 1999.]
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS, CHANCELLOR ROGER POSADAS, DR. EMERLINDA ROMAN, DEAN CONSUELO PAZ, DR. ISAGANI MEDINA, DR. MARIA SERENA DIOKNO, DR. OLIVIA CAOILI, DR. FRANCISCO NEMENZO II, DEAN PACIFICO AGABIN, CARMELITA GUNO, and MARICHU LAMBINO, petitioners, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE, respondents.
8. [G.R. No. 127930, December 15, 2000.]
MIRRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION, INC., petitioners, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JASPER BRIONES, JEROME GOMEZ, RELLY CARPIO, ELIZABETH VALDEZCO, JOSEMARI RAMOS, CAMILLE PORTUGAL, JOEL TAN and GERALD GARY RENACIDO, respondents.
9. [G.R. No. L 13954. August 12, 1959]
GENARO GERONA, ET. AL, petitioners – appellants, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET. AL., respondents-appellees.
10. [G.R. No. L- 14283. November 29, 1960]
GIL BALBUNA, ET. AL., petitioners and appellants, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, ET.AL., respondents and appellees, K.V. Faylona and Juan B. Soliven for Appellants.
11. [G.R. No. 95770, December 29, 1995]
ROEL EBRALINAG, EMILY EBRALINAG, represented by their parents, And Leonardo Ebralinag, et. Al., petitioners, vs. The DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS OF CEBU and BIONGCOG, Cebu District Supervisor, respondents