UP BOARD OF REGENTS vs. HON.

COURT OF APPEALS and AROKIASWAMY

WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE
(G.R. No. 134625 August 31, 1999)
After Arokiaswamys dissertation defense, four out of five of her panelists affixed
their signatures on her approval sheet recommending to incorporate revisions on portions
of her paper which were lifted without proper acknowledgement. During a meeting held
to discuss the amendments sought to be revised, Dean Paz remarked that a majority vote
from the students panel is sufficient for passing. Respondent subsequently submitted
hard copies of her dissertation without incorporating the revisions. Drs. Medina and
Manuel did not approve of her graduation form the graduate program which effected the
request to exclude respondents name in the list of graduating students for the academic
year 1992-1993. Despite her graduation, Dean Paz would not grant respondents
academic clearance from the university due should the latter fail to substantiate the
accusation on plagiarism; failure of such action would result to withdrawal of her
doctorate degree. Because respondent still did not heed to such call, her case was
forwarded to the UP Board of Regents. Respondent averred that she had not been
afforded due process because it should have been the Student Disciplinary Tribunal that
had jurisdiction over her case. An adhoc committee found ninety instances of
documented lifting which constitute ground for intellectual dishonesty. The case was
brought to the trial court which dismissed her petition. Her case was elevated to the
appellate court which ordered to restore respondents degree.
Whether it was right for UP Board of Regents to withdraw respondents doctorate
degree.
It was right for UP Board of Regents to withdraw respondents doctorate degree
because it is granted the constitutional right of academic freedom in conferring degrees.
If such degrees are procured by error or bad faith, UP Board of Regents has all the right
to cancel or withdraw them. Hence, It has a wide spread of power which extends to the
choice of which students it would allow to graduate.

EVELYN CHUA-QUA vs HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE

(G.R. No. 49549
August 30, 1990)

Petitioner is a high school teacher who gave remedial instructions to her student, 16 year
old Bobby Qua. They later fell in love and were married, with consent of the mother of
the student. Thereafter, private respondent filed for a clearance to terminate the
petitioners employment "For abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified
school teacher and that her continued employment is inimical to the best interest, and
would downgrade the high moral values, of the school."
The NLRC later granted the clearance, but then reversed its decision and ordered
petitioners reinstatement, with back wages, on grounds that the evidence against her was
insubstantial. The case was raised to the level of the Minister of Labor, who reversed the
NLRC decision, but granted the respondent six months worth of salary as financial
assistance. The case later went up to the Office of the President, through the Presidential
Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave, who once again reinstated the petitioner. The
school, however, decided to still terminate Chua-Qua, on grounds that it did so to uphold
school policy.
The issue in this case is whether or not the actions of the petitioner constituted immoral
conduct, given the evidence presented.
The court ruled that the respondent did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The two
fell in love, but this would not mean that their status was contrary to social standards.
However, given that the current status as teachers between the petitioner and her student
had been disturbed, court ruled that there is no wisdom in reinstating the petitioner to her
teaching post.
The court therefore granted the petition, and the petitioner is entitled to three years worth
of back wages, without deduction or qualification, and separation pay worth one month
for every three years of service.

Catarman, Isiah Thomas

De Castro, Marvin Doods
LLB 1-Manresa
110 Leg Wri, ThF 5pm-6pm

ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES

ROMEO G. GUANZON and TERESITA REGALADO
(G.R. No. L-56180 October 16, 1986)
The slapping incident caused Juan Ramon to be dismissed from Ateneo de Manila
University which triggered the complaint for damages in violation of due process because
of the alleged failure of the university to provide him a fair trial. In response, it denied the
allegations and justified the dismissal on the ground of his unbecoming behavior further
positing that the university has the sole prerogative and authority to dismiss a student in
order to preserve and maintain its integrity and discipline. This case was brought to the
trial court which ruled in favor of the Guanzons and ordered the university to pay for
actual and moral damages. Upon appeal, the appellate court ruled in favor of the
university and set aside trial courts decision. However, upon motion for reconsideration
filed by the Guanzons, the Court of Appeals reversed its own decision.
Whether Juan Ramon was denied of due process on the ground of unfair trial.
Juan Ramon was not denied of due process as he appeared before the Board of
Discipline. Having admitted the slapping incident, he was even given notice of the
proceedings. He was able to present his side in which the investigating board acted fairly
and objectively; therefore, all the necessary administrative due process was met.