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. ERENETA. petitioners, vs. HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, Presiding Judge of the RTC-Makati, Br. 134, ZOSIMO MENDOZA, JR. ERNEST MONTECILLO, ADEL ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO AMADO SABBAN, DALMACIO LIM JR., MANUEL ESCONA and JUDE FERNANDEZ, respondents. ROMERO, J .:
investigate the charges of hazing against respondent students Abas and Mendoza.Respondent students reacted immediately by filing a Supplemental Petition of certiorari , prohibition and mandamus mandamus with prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, to include the aforesaid members of the Special Board, as additional respondents to the original petition. The respondent Judge granted their prayer. Respondent Judge ordered petitioners to reinstate respondent students. Simultaneously, the court ordered petitioners to conduct special examinations in lieu of the final examinations which allegedly the students were not allowed to take, and enjoined them to maintain the status quo quo with regard to the cases of Adel Abas and Zosimo Mendoza pending final determination of the issue of the instant case. Hence, this special civil action of certiorari under Rule 65 with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order enjoining the enforcement of the May 17, 1991 order of respondent judge ISSUE: 1)
FACTS:
This is a case in which the right of a University to refuse admittance to its students is challenged. An initiation rites, as a requisite to membership of a certain fraternity organization in the Ateneo Law School, Aquila Legis, caused the death of one Leonardo "Lennie" H. Villa, inflicting serious physical injuries and the hospitalization of Beinvenido Marques, all freshmen students of of the petitioner university. Then thru notices, petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillo created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee tasked to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death and subsequently a Disciplinary Board to ascertain if the respondent students violated Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue entitled Discipline. After evaluation of the circumstances, the written statements and answers and testimonies, the Board found the respondent students guilty of violating the said Rule, specifically guilty of hazing, either by active participation or 11 by acquiescence (part and parcel of the integral process of hazing). However, Petitioner Dean del Castillo waived her prerogative to review the decision of the Board and left to the President of the University the decision of whether to expel respondents or not. Consequently,petitioner Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, as President of the Ateneo de Manila University, accepted the factual findings of the Board, thus imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students (principle that "where two or more persons act together in the commission of a crime, whether they act through the physical volition of one or of all, proceeding severally or collectively, each individual whose will contributes to the wrongdoing is responsible for the whole., offense of the respondents can be characterized as grave and serious, subversive of the goals of Christian education and contrary to civilized behavior.") In a resolution, however, Abas and Mendoza, respondent students, were excluded from the coverage since neither had submitted their case to the Board, and an investigation of the two will be set. In response, the respondent students filed a petition for certiorari , prohibition and mandamus mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary 14 injunction alleging that they were currently enrolled as students for the second semester of school year 1990-91. Unless a temporary restraining order is issued, they would be prevented from taking their examinations. The petition principally centered on the alleged lack of due process in their dismissal. On the same day, Judge Madayag issued a temporary restraining order the enjoining petitioners from dismissing respondent students
WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT STUDENTS WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS?
HELD:1) NO. Corollary to their contention of denials of due process is their argument that 25 it is Ang Tib ay case case and not the Guzman Guzman case which is applicable in the case at bar. Though both cases essentially deal with the requirements of due process, the Guzman case is more apropos to the instant case, since the latter deals specifically with the minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, such as petitioner university herein, 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 26 decide the case. - Requirements are met. Respondent students were notified and required to submit written statements, and such notices and letters were addressed individually to them. Such notices and letters clearly show that respondent students were given ample opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf and to answer the charges leveled against them. The requisite assistance of counsel was met when, from the very start of the investigations before the Joint Administration Faculty-Student Committee, the law firm of Gonzales Batiler and Bilog and Associates put in its appearance and filed pleadings in behalf of respondent students. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED; the order of respondent Judge dated May 17, 1991 reinstating respondents students into petitioner university is hereby REVERSED. The resolution of petitioner Joaquin Bernas S. J., then President of Ateneo de Manila University dated March 1991, is REINSTATED and the decision of the Special Board DISMISSING respondent students ADEL ABAS and ZOSIMO MENDOZA dated May 20, 1991 is hereby AFFIRMED.
G.R. No. 89317 May 20, 1990 ARIEL NON, REX MAGANA, ALVIN AGURA, NORMANDY OCCIANO, JORGE DAYAON, LOURDES BANARES, BARTOLOME IBASCO, EMMANUEL BARBA, SONNY MORENO, GIOVANI PALMA, JOSELITO VILLALON, LUIS SANTOS, and DANIEL TORRES, petitioners, vs. HON. SANCHO DANES II, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of 5th Regional Trial Court, Br. 38, Daet, Camarines Norte; and MABINI COLLEGES, INC., represented by its president ROMULO ADEVA and by the chairman of the Board of Trustees, JUSTO LUKBAN, respondents. FACTS: Petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini Colleges, Inc. were not allowed to re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating in student mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. The subject of the protests is not, however, made clear in the pleadings. Petitioners filed a petition in the court a quo quo seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to the school, but the trial court dismissed the petition REFERRING to a ruling in Alcuaz vs. PSBA allowing schools to bar the readmission or re-enrollment of students on the ground of termination of contract. A motion for reconsideration was filed, but this was denied by the trial court. Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction.
ISSUES: 1)
Whether or not the school has the right not to re-admit the petitioners.
2)
Whether or not School’s Academic Freedom
a Ground for Denying Students' Rights. Rights.
HELD: 1) The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot anchor the “Termination of Contract” theory the contract between the school and the student is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public interest, considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational institutions. The authority for schools to refuse enrollment to a student on the ground that his contract, which has a term of one semester, has already expired, cannot be justified. Still, institutions' discretion on the admission and enrollment of students as a major component of the academic freedom guaranteed to institutions of higher learning. The right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards, however, cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for otherwise there will be a violation of their right to equal protection. Thus, an institution of learning has a contractual obligation to afford its students a fair opportunity to complete the course they seek to pursue. However, when a student commits a serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standard, he forfeits his contractual right; and the court should not review the discretion of university authorities. Excluding students because of failing grades when the cause for the action taken against them undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not only is a denial of due
subjects by some cannot be considered marked academic deficiency. Neither can the academic deficiency be gauged from the academic standards of the school due to insufficiency of information. Herein, the students could have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with the mass actions, but the penalty that could have been imposed must be commensurate to the offense committed and it must be imposed only after the requirements of procedural due process have been complied with (Paragraph 145, Manual of Regulations for Private Schools). But this matter of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of administrative sanctions have become moot and a cademic; as the students have been refused readmission or re-enrollment and have been effectively excluded from for 4 semesters, have already been more than sufficiently penalized for any breach of discipline they might have committed when they led and participated in the mass actions that resulted in the disruption of classes. To still subject them to disciplinary proceedings would serve no useful purpose and would only further aggravate the strained relations between the students and the officials of the school which necessarily resulted from the heated legal battle.
2) Court's unequivocal statement in Villar that that the right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to speech and assembly, for otherwise there win be a violation of their right to equal protection [At p. 711] it does not appear that the petitioners were afforded due process, in the manner expressed in Guzman, before Guzman, before they were refused re-enrollment. In fact, it would appear from the pleadings that the decision to refuse them re-enrollment because of failing grades was a mere afterthought. It is not denied that what incurred the ire of the school authorities was the student mass actions conducted in February 1988 and which were led and/or participated in by petitioners. Certainly, excluding students because of failing grades when the cause for the action taken against them undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not only is a denial of due process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair play.
G.R. No. 81798 December 29, 1989 LAO GI alias FILOMENO CHIA, SR., his wife, ONG UE, and his children FILOMENO, JR., MANUEL, ROSITA VICENTA and DOMINGA, all surnamed CHIA, petitioners vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND COMMISSION ON IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION, respondents.
Under Section 37(c) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940 as amended, it is provided:
FACTS:
Originally granted citizenship, a charge for deportation was filed with the Commission on Immigration and Deportation (CID) against Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Sr., his wife and children on the ground that it was founded on fraud and misrepresentation. Also, amended charges was filed against CHIAs for refusal to register as aliens having been required to do so and continued to refuse to register as such and committing acts of undesirability. CHIAs then filed motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration but were all denied by CID. A Petition for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary in junction and RO was filed with SC, but then again dismissed by the Court for lack of merit. On another instance, Manuel Chia was falsification of public documents in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila alleging that he was a Filipino citizen in the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale of certain real property. He was acquitted by the trial court. CID, then, set the deportation case a gainst the CHIAs and CHIAs filed Motion for reconsideration and motion to dismiss but were denied by Acting Commissioner Nituda. Petitioner filed for certiorari and prohibition with a prayer for injunctive relief in the Court of First Instance of Manila but same was denied for lack of legal basis. An appeal therefrom was interposed to the Court of Appeals. . In due course a decision was rendered dismissing the appeal. A motion for reconsideration of the decision filed by petitioners was also denied. Hence, the herein petition for certiorari filed by petitioners wherein they seek to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and ask that a new one be rendered setting aside the order of the CID and directing it to proceed with the reception of the evidence in support of the charges against the petitioners. ISSUES: 1)
Whether or not the petitioners were were denied due process of law in the light of the deportation proceedings of the CID?
HELD: 1)
Although a deportation proceeding does not partake of the nature of a criminal action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding affecting the freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied. Thus, the provisions of the Rules of Court of the Philippines particularly on criminal procedure are applicable to deportation proceedings.
The power to deport an alien is an act of the State. ItIt is an act by or under the 1 authority of the sovereign power. It is a police measure against undesirable aliens whose presence in the country is found to be injurious to the public good
c No alien shall be deported without being informed of the specific grounds for deportation nor without being given a hearing under rules of procedure to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Immigration. Hence, the charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of which must be stated in ordinary and concise language to enable a person of common understanding to know on what ground he is intended to 3 be deported and enable the CID to pronounce a proper judgment. WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED and the questioned order of the respondent Commission on Immigration and Deportation dated September 28, 1982 is hereby set aside. The respondent Commission on Immigration and Deportation is hereby directed to continue hearing the deportation case against petitioners and thereafter, based on the evidence before it, to resolve the issue of citizenship of petitioners, and if found to be aliens, to determine whether or not the petitioners should be deported and/or otherwise ordered to register as aliens. No costs.
G.R. No. 143964
July 26, 2004
GLOBE TELECOM, INC., petitioner, vs. THE NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER JOSEPH A. SANTIAGO, DEPUTY COMMISSIONERS AURELIO M. UMALI and NESTOR DACANAY, and SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. respondents.
necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision. Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion, but the evidence must be substantial. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the 74 record and disclosed to the parties affected. affected. NTC violated several of these cardinal rights due Globe in the promulgation of the assailed Order.
FACTS:
A) Smart filed a Complaint with NTC to interconnect Smart's and Globe's GSM networks, particularly their respective SMS or texting services. The Complaint arose from the inability of the two leading CMTS providers to effect interconnection. Smart alleged that Globe, with evident bad faith and malice, refused to grant Smart's request for the interconnection of SMS. After the Show Cause Order of NTC, Globe filed its Answer its Answer with Motion to Dismiss interposing Dismiss interposing grounds that the Complaint was was premature (Smart's failure to comply with the conditions precedent required in Section 6 of NTC Memorandum 19 Circular 9-7-93, 9-7-93, and its omission of the mandatory Certification of Non-Forum 20 Shopping. Shopping. Smart responded that it had already submitted the voluminous documents asked by Globe). NTC THEN issued the Order declaring declaring that both Smart and Globe have been providing SMS without authority from it, in violation of Section 420 (f) of MC No. 8-995 which requires PTEs intending to provide value-added services (VAS) to secure prior approval from NTC through an administrative process. Globe filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition to nullify and set aside the Order and to prohibit NTC from taking any further action in the case. Globe alleged that the Order is a patent nullity as it imposed an administrative penalty for an offense for which neither it nor Smart was sufficiently charged nor heard on in violation of their right to due process. Having the CA issued a TRO, it consequently affirmed in toto 31 Reconsideration, seeking to the NTC’s order. Yet Globe filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, reconsider only the portion of the Decision that Decision that upheld NTC's finding that Globe lacked the authority to provide SMS and its imposition of a fine. After the Court of Appeals denied the 33 Motion for Partial Reconsideration, Reconsideration, Globe elevated the controversy to this Court. Hence, this petition. ISSUES: 1)
Whether OR NOT NTC acted with due process in levying the fine against Globe?
HELD: 1)
There are cardinal primary rights which which must be respected even in proceedings of this character. The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof. Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented. While the
B) C)
First. The NTC Order is not supported by substantial evidence. Neither does it sufficiently explain the reasons for the decision rendered. Second . Globe and Smart were denied opportunity to present evidence on the issues relating to the nature of VAS and the prior approval. Third. The Third. The imposition of fine is void for violation of due process. Since this question would also call to fore the relevant provisions of the Public Service Act, it deserves its own extensive discussion.
Every party subject to administrative regulation deserves an opportunity to know, through reasonable regulations promulgated by the agency, of the objective standards that have to be met. Such rule is integral to due process, as it protects substantive rights. Such rule also promotes harmony within the service or industry subject to regulation. It provides indubitable opportunities to weed out the most frivolous conflicts with minimum hassle, and certain footing in deciding more substantive claims. If this results in a tenfold in administrative rules and regulations, such price is worth paying if it also results in clarity and consistency in the operative rules of the game. The administrative process will best be 70 vindicated by clarity in its exercise. exercise. WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED
