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.
Antonio A. Ayo Jr. and Soliman M. Santos, Jr., for petitioners
Pedro A. Venida Agustin A. Ferrer and Gil F. Echaro for private respondents.

CORTES, J.:

Petitioners urge the Court en banc to review and reverse the doctrine laid down in Alcuaz, et al.
v. Philippine School of Business Administration, et al., G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988, 161 SCRA
7, to the effect that a college student, once admitted by the school, is considered enrolled only
for one semester and, hence, may be refused readmission after the semester is over, as the
contract between the student and the school is deemed terminated.

FACTS:
Petitioners who are students in private respondent Mabini Colleges, Inc. in Daet,
Camarines Norte, 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 wherein the subject of the protests is however, not made clear in
the pleadings.

Petitioners filed a petition before RTC seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to the
school which was dismissed on August 8, 1988. They filed for a motion for
reconsideration, but was also denied by the trial court on February 24, 1989 stating that
they waived their privilege to be admitted for re-enrollment with respondent college
when they adopted, signed, and used its enrollment form for the first semester of school
year 1988-89 and signed pledges stating to abide with rules of the school.

It was stated that Petitioners' claim of lack of due process cannot prosper in view of their
failure to deny respondent's defences that "they were given all the chances to air their
grievances on February 9, 10, 16, and 18, 1988, and also on February 22, 1988 during
which they were represented by Atty. Jose L. Lapak" and that on February 22, 1988,
the date of the resumption of classes at Mabini College, petitioners continued their rally
picketing, even though without any renewal permit, physically coercing students not to
attend their classes, thereby disrupting the scheduled classes and depriving a great
majority of students of their right to be present in their classes.

Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction.

To Justify school’s action, respondent’s in their comment stated that 8 out of the 13
petitioner have incurred failing and incomplete grades.
In answer, petitioners stated that their deficiencies doo not warrant non readmission,
their breach of discipline was not serious and their conduct was during the exercise of
rig to speech and peaceable assembly. Also, there was no due investigation that could
serve a basis for disciplinary action and respondent admits students wit worse
deficiencies which is a clear case of discrimination for their role in the rally.

After considering the comment and hearing the injunction application, the Court of
Appeals resolved on May 22, 1989 to certify the case back to the Supreme Court
considering that only pure questions of law were raised.
Respondents filed their comment on November 13, 1989. Petitioners were required to
reply. As reply, they filed a pleading entitled "Counter-Comment," to which respondents
filed a rejoinder entitled "Reply to Counter-Comment To this petitioners filed a
"Rejoinder to Reply."
The issues having been joined, the case was deemed submitted.

ISSUE:
Whether there was a violation of procedural due process?

RULING:
Yes, it did not appear that petitioners were afforded due process before they were
refused re-enrollment.

The Court stated that it is well settled in our jurisdiction that protection to the rights of
speech and assembly guaranteed by the Constitution is similarly available to students.
While the highest regard must be afforded to constitutional rights, this should not be
taken to mean that school authorities are virtually powerless to discipline students as
made clear by the Court in Malabanan.

However, as stated in Guzman, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires

observance of minimum standards to satisfy demands of procedural due process; and
these are, that
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them;
(2) 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 In fact,
(5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or
official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

Moreover, as stated in Malabanan, the penalty imposed must be proportionate to the

offense committed to avoid arbitrariness.
Here, it did not appear that the standards to satisfy procedural due process was met. it
would appear from the pleadings that the decision to refuse petitioners of 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 participated by petitioners conducted in February 1988.

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.

It was clear that 5 students who did not incur failing marks namely, Normandy Occiano,
Lourdes Banares, Bartolome Ibasco, Sonny Moreno and Giovani Palma, were refused
re-enrollment without just cause and, hence, should be allowed to re-enroll.

Moreover, of the eight (8) students with only one or two failures, namely, Rex Magana,
Elvin Agura, Emmanuel Barba, and Luis Santos, cannot be considered marked
academic deficiency within the context of the Court's decision in Villar.

Then, while the prerogative of schools to set academic standards is recognized, the
court cannot affirm school’s action regarding students who incurred several failing
grades, namely, Ariel Non, Joselito Villalon, George (Jorge) Dayaon, and Daniel Torres,
because of insufficient information as it was not clear from respondents' enumeration
whether the failures were incurred in only one semester or through the course of several
semesters of study in the school.Neither are the academic standards of respondent
school was provided as basis whether petitioners are academically deficient.

With regard to petitioner Emmanuel Barba who respondents claim has enrolled in Ago
Foundation, will not bar him from seeking readmission in respondent school.

Further, court stated that disciplinary actions against petitioners could have been taken
for breach of discipline if warranted by the facts but only imposed only after compliance
of procedural due process particularly after due investigation as explicitly stated from
Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, as cited in Guzman.

However, the matter of imposition of disciplinary actions have become moot and
academic as petitioners have been refused readmission for 4 semesters which have
already been more than sufficient for breach oof discipline for participating in the mass
action which resulted in disruption of classes as according to respondents.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of respondent judge dated August
8, 1988 and February 24, 1989 are hereby ANNULLED. Respondent Mabini College is
ORDERED to readmit and to allow the re- enrollment of petitioners, if they are still so
minded, without prejudice to its taking the appropriate action as to petitioners Ariel Non,
Joselito Villalon, George (Jorge) Dayaon and Daniel Torres, if it is shown by their
records (Form 137) that they have failed to satisfy the school's prescribed academic
standards.