PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO, petitioners, vs.

FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC., respondents.

PARDO, J.:
The case before us is a petition for review on certiorari[1] to set aside the (a) decision of the
Court of Appeals[2], and (b) the resolution denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration,[3] in
which the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint for infringement
and/or unfair competition and damages but deleted the award for attorney's fees.
The facts are as follows:
Petitioners are authors and copyright owners of duly issued certificates of copyright registration
covering their published works, produced through their combined resources and efforts, entitled
COLLEGE ENGLISH FOR TODAY (CET for brevity), Books 1 and 2, and WORKBOOK FOR COLLEGE
FRESHMAN ENGLISH, Series 1.
Respondent Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. are the author/publisher and
distributor/seller of another published work entitled "DEVELOPING ENGLISH PROFICIENCY" (DEP
for brevity), Books 1 and 2 (1985 edition) which book was covered by copyrights issued to them.
In the course of revising their published works, petitioners scouted and looked around various
bookstores to check on other textbooks dealing with the same subject matter. By chance they
came upon the book of respondent Robles and upon perusal of said book they were surprised to
see that the book was strikingly similar to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and
illustrative examples in their own book, CET.
After an itemized examination and comparison of the two books (CET and DEP), petitioners found
that several pages of the respondent's book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners'
book, which is a case of plagiarism and copyright infringement.
Petitioners then made demands for damages against respondents and also demanded that they
cease and desist from further selling and distributing to the general public the infringed copies of
respondent Robles' works.
However, respondents ignored the demands, hence, on July 7, 1988, petitioners filed with the
Regional Trial Court, Makati, a complaint for "Infringement and/or unfair competition with
damages"[4] against private respondents.[5]
In the complaint, petitioners alleged that in 1985, respondent Felicidad C. Robles being
substantially familiar with the contents of petitioners' works, and without securing their
permission, lifted, copied, plagiarized and/or transposed certain portions of their book CET. The
textual contents and illustrations of CET were literally reproduced in the book DEP. The
plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of particular portions of the book CET in the book
DEP, without the authority or consent of petitioners, and the misrepresentations of respondent
Robles that the same was her original work and concept adversely affected and substantially
diminished the sale of the petitioners' book and caused them actual damages by way of
unrealized income.
Despite the demands of the petitioners for respondents to desist from committing further acts of
infringement and for respondent to recall DEP from the market, respondents refused. Petitioners
asked the court to order the submission of all copies of the book DEP, together with the molds,
plates and films and other materials used in its printing destroyed, and for respondents to render
an accounting of the proceeds of all sales and profits since the time of its publication and sale.
Respondent Robles was impleaded in the suit because she authored and directly committed the

acts of infringement complained of, while respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. was impleaded as
the publisher and joint co-owner of the copyright certificates of registration covering the two
books authored and caused to be published by respondent Robles with obvious connivance with
one another.
On July 27, 1988, respondent Robles filed a motion for a bill of particulars[6] which the trial court
approved on August 17, 1988. Petitioners complied with the desired particularization, and
furnished respondent Robles the specific portions, inclusive of pages and lines, of the published
and copyrighted books of the petitioners which were transposed, lifted, copied and plagiarized
and/or otherwise found their way into respondent's book.
On August 1, 1988, respondent Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. filed its answer to the complaint[7] and
alleged that petitioners had no cause of action against Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. since it was not
privy to the misrepresentation, plagiarism, incorporation and reproduction of the portions of the
book of petitioners; that there was an agreement between Goodwill and the respondent Robles
that Robles guaranteed Goodwill that the materials utilized in the manuscript were her own or
that she had secured the necessary permission from contributors and sources; that the author
assumed sole responsibility and held the publisher without any liability.
On November 28, 1988, respondent Robles filed her answer[8], and denied the allegations of
plagiarism and copying that petitioners claimed. Respondent stressed that (1) the book DEP is
the product of her independent researches, studies and experiences, and was not a copy of any
existing valid copyrighted book; (2) DEP followed the scope and sequence or syllabus which are
common to all English grammar writers as recommended by the Association of Philippine
Colleges of Arts and Sciences (APCAS), so any similarity between the respondents book and that
of the petitioners was due to the orientation of the authors to both works and standards and
syllabus; and (3) the similarities may be due to the authors' exercise of the "right to fair use of
copyrigthed materials, as guides."
Respondent interposed a counterclaim for damages on the ground that bad faith and malice
attended the filing of the complaint, because petitioner Habana was professionally jealous and
the book DEP replaced CET as the official textbook of the graduate studies department of the Far
Eastern University.[9]
During the pre-trial conference, the parties agreed to a stipulation of facts[10] and for the trial
court to first resolve the issue of infringement before disposing of the claim for damages.
After the trial on the merits, on April 23, 1993, the trial court rendered its judgment finding thus:
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby orders that the complaint filed against
defendants Felicidad Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. shall be DISMISSED; that said plaintiffs
solidarily reimburse defendant Robles for P20,000.00 attorney's fees and defendant Goodwill for
P5,000.00 attorney's fees. Plaintiffs are liable for cost of suit.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
"Done in the City of Manila this 23rd day of April, 1993.
"(s/t) MARVIE R. ABRAHAM SINGSON
"Assisting Judge
"S. C. Adm. Order No. 124-92"[11]
On May 14, 1993, petitioners filed their notice of appeal with the trial court[12], and on July 19,
1993, the court directed its branch clerk of court to forward all the records of the case to the

Court of Appeals.[13]
In the appeal, petitioners argued that the trial court completely disregarded their evidence and
fully subscribed to the arguments of respondent Robles that the books in issue were purely the
product of her researches and studies and that the copied portions were inspired by foreign
authors and as such not subject to copyright. Petitioners also assailed the findings of the trial
court that they were animated by bad faith in instituting the complaint.[14]
On June 27, 1997, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and
Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. The relevant portions of the decision state:
"It must be noted, however, that similarity of the allegedly infringed work to the author's or
proprietor's copyrighted work does not of itself establish copyright infringement, especially if the
similarity results from the fact that both works deal with the same subject or have the same
common source, as in this case.
Appellee Robles has fully explained that the portion or material of the book claimed by
appellants to have been copied or lifted from foreign books. She has duly proven that most of the
topics or materials contained in her book, with particular reference to those matters claimed by
appellants to have been plagiarized were topics or matters appearing not only in appellants and
her books but also in earlier books on College English, including foreign books, e.i. Edmund
Burke's "Speech on Conciliation", Boerigs' "Competence in English" and Broughton's, "Edmund
Burke's Collection."
xxx
"Appellant's reliance on the last paragraph on Section 11 is misplaced. It must be emphasized
that they failed to prove that their books were made sources by appellee."[15]
The Court of Appeals was of the view that the award of attorneys' fees was not proper, since
there was no bad faith on the part of petitioners Habana et al. in instituting the action against
respondents.
On July 12, 1997, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration,[16] however, the Court of
Appeals denied the same in a Resolution[17] dated November 25, 1997.
Hence, this petition.
In this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's
decision.
Petitioners raised the following issues: (1) whether or not, despite the apparent textual, thematic
and sequential similarity between DEP and CET, respondents committed no copyright
infringement; (2) whether or not there was animus furandi on the part of respondent when they
refused to withdraw the copies of CET from the market despite notice to withdraw the same; and
(3) whether or not respondent Robles abused a writer's right to fair use, in violation of Section 11
of Presidential Decree No. 49.[18]
We find the petition impressed with merit.
The complaint for copyright infringement was filed at the time that Presidential Decree No. 49
was in force. At present, all laws dealing with the protection of intellectual property rights have
been consolidated and as the law now stands, the protection of copyrights is governed by
Republic Act No. 8293. Notwithstanding the change in the law, the same principles are reiterated
in the new law under Section 177. It provides for the copy or economic rights of an owner of a
copyright as follows:

"Sec.177. Copy or Economic rights.-Subject to the provisions of chapter VIII, copyright or

economic rights shall consist of the exclusive right to carry out, authorize or prevent the
following acts:
177.1 Reproduction of the work or substantial portion of the work;
177.2 Dramatization, translation, adaptation, abridgement, arrangement or other transformation
of the work;
177.3 The first public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale or other forms
of transfer of ownership;
177.4 Rental of the original or a copy of an audiovisual or cinematographic work, a work
embodied in a sound recording, a computer program, a compilation of data and other materials
or a musical work in graphic form, irrespective of the ownership of the original or the copy which
is the subject of the rental; (n)
177.5 Public display of the original or copy of the work;
177.6 Public performance of the work; and
177.7 Other communication to the public of the work"[19]
The law also provided for the limitations on copyright, thus:
"Sec. 184.1 Limitations on copyright.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following
acts shall not constitute infringement of copyright:
(a) the recitation or performance of a work, once it has been lawfully made accessible to the
public, if done privately and free of charge or if made strictly for a charitable or religious
institution or society; [Sec. 10(1), P.D. No. 49]
(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only
to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and
periodicals in the form of press summaries; Provided, that the source and the name of the
author, if appearing on the work are mentioned; (Sec. 11 third par. P.D.49)
xxxxxxxxxxxx
(e) The inclusion of a work in a publication, broadcast, or other communication to the public,
sound recording of film, if such inclusion is made by way of illustration for teaching purposes and
is compatible with fair use: Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing in
the work is mentioned;[20]
In the above quoted provisions, "work" has reference to literary and artistic creations and this
includes books and other literary, scholarly and scientific works.[21]
A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not identical with
the text of CET.
On page 404 of petitioners' Book 1 of College English for Today, the authors wrote:
Items in dates and addresses:
He died on Monday, April 15, 1975.

Miss Reyes lives in 214 Taft Avenue,

Manila[22]
On page 73 of respondents Book 1 Developing English Today, they wrote:
He died on Monday, April 25, 1975.
Miss Reyes address is 214 Taft Avenue Manila[23]
On Page 250 of CET, there is this example on parallelism or repetition of sentence structures,
thus:
"The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted
through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal
discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical
determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking of the boundary of a complex
government. It is simple peace; sought in its natural course, and in its ordinary haunts. It is
peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific.
--- Edmund Burke, " Speech on Criticism."[24]
On page 100 of the book DEP[25], also in the topic of parallel structure and repetition, the same
example is found in toto. The only difference is that petitioners acknowledged the author
Edmund Burke, and respondents did not.
In several other pages[26] the treatment and manner of presentation of the topics of DEP are
similar if not a rehash of that contained in CET.
We believe that respondent Robles' act of lifting from the book of petitioners substantial portions
of discussions and examples, and her failure to acknowledge the same in her book is an
infringement of petitioners' copyrights.
When is there a substantial reproduction of a book? It does not necessarily require that the entire
copyrighted work, or even a large portion of it, be copied. If so much is taken that the value of
the original work is substantially diminished, there is an infringement of copyright and to an
injurious extent, the work is appropriated.[27]
In determining the question of infringement, the amount of matter copied from the copyrighted
work is an important consideration. To constitute infringement, it is not necessary that the whole
or even a large portion of the work shall have been copied. If so much is taken that the value of
the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially and to an
injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient in point of law to constitute piracy.[28]
The essence of intellectual piracy should be essayed in conceptual terms in order to underscore
its gravity by an appropriate understanding thereof. Infringement of a copyright is a trespass on
a private domain owned and occupied by the owner of the copyright, and, therefore, protected
by law, and infringement of copyright, or piracy, which is a synonymous term in this connection,
consists in the doing by any person, without the consent of the owner of the copyright, of
anything the sole right to do which is conferred by statute on the owner of the copyright.[29]
The respondents' claim that the copied portions of the book CET are also found in foreign books
and other grammar books, and that the similarity between her style and that of petitioners can
not be avoided since they come from the same background and orientation may be true.
However, in this jurisdiction under Sec 184 of Republic Act 8293 it is provided that:

Limitations on Copyright. Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter V, the following shall not
constitute infringement of copyright:
xxxxxxxxxxxx
(c) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only
to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and
periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the
author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.
A copy of a piracy is an infringement of the original, and it is no defense that the pirate, in such
cases, did not know whether or not he was infringing any copyright; he at least knew that what
he was copying was not his, and he copied at his peril.[30]
The next question to resolve is to what extent can copying be injurious to the author of the book
being copied. Is it enough that there are similarities in some sections of the books or large
segments of the books are the same?
In the case at bar, there is no question that petitioners presented several pages of the books CET
and DEP that more or less had the same contents. It may be correct that the books being
grammar books may contain materials similar as to some technical contents with other grammar
books, such as the segment about the "Author Card". However, the numerous pages that the
petitioners presented showing similarity in the style and the manner the books were presented
and the identical examples can not pass as similarities merely because of technical
consideration.
The respondents claim that their similarity in style can be attributed to the fact that both of them
were exposed to the APCAS syllabus and their respective academic experience, teaching
approach and methodology are almost identical because they were of the same background.
However, we believe that even if petitioners and respondent Robles were of the same
background in terms of teaching experience and orientation, it is not an excuse for them to be
identical even in examples contained in their books. The similarities in examples and material
contents are so obviously present in this case. How can similar/identical examples not be
considered as a mark of copying?
We consider as an indicia of guilt or wrongdoing the act of respondent Robles of pulling out from
Goodwill bookstores the book DEP upon learning of petitioners' complaint while pharisaically
denying petitioners' demand. It was further noted that when the book DEP was re-issued as a
revised version, all the pages cited by petitioners to contain portion of their book College English
for Today were eliminated.
In cases of infringement, copying alone is not what is prohibited. The copying must produce an
"injurious effect". Here, the injury consists in that respondent Robles lifted from petitioners' book
materials that were the result of the latter's research work and compilation and misrepresented
them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use and did not acknowledge
petitioners as her source.
Hence, there is a clear case of appropriation of copyrighted work for her benefit that respondent
Robles committed. Petitioners' work as authors is the product of their long and assiduous
research and for another to represent it as her own is injury enough. In copyrighting books the
purpose is to give protection to the intellectual product of an author. This is precisely what the
law on copyright protected, under Section 184.1 (b). Quotations from a published work if they are
compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified by the purpose, including quotations

from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries are allowed provided
that the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned.
In the case at bar, the least that respondent Robles could have done was to acknowledge
petitioners Habana et. al. as the source of the portions of DEP. The final product of an author's
toil is her book. To allow another to copy the book without appropriate acknowledgment is injury
enough.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G. R. CV No. 44053 are SET ASIDE. The case is ordered remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings to receive evidence of the parties to ascertain the damages caused and
sustained by petitioners and to render decision in accordance with the evidence submitted to it.
SO ORDERED.

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.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
For review before the Court is the decision of the Court of Appeals1 [Per Associate Justice
Artemio G. Tuquero and concurred in by Associate Justices Jorge S. Imperial and Eubulo G.
Verzola.] in CA-G.R. SP No. 42788, dated December 16, 1997, which granted private respondent's
application for a writ of mandatory injunction, and its resolution, dated July 13, 1998, denying
petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Private respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret Celine is a citizen of India and holder of a
Philippine visitor's visa. Sometime in April 1988, she enrolled in the doctoral program in
Anthropology of the University of the Philippines College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
(CSSP) in Diliman, Quezon City.
After completing the units of course work required in her doctoral program, private respondent
went on a two-year leave of absence to work as Tamil Programme Producer of the Vatican Radio
in the Vatican and as General Office Assistant at the International Right to Life Federation in
Rome. She returned to the Philippines in July 1991 to work on her dissertation entitled, "Tamil
Influences in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines."

On December 22, 1992, Dr. Realidad S. Rolda, chairperson of the U.P. Department of
Anthropology, wrote a letter to Dr. Maria Serena Diokno, CSSP Associate Dean and Graduate
Program Director, certifying that private respondent had finished her dissertation and was ready
for her oral defense. Dr. Rolda suggested that the oral defense be held on January 6, 1993 but, in
a letter, dated February 2, 1993, Dr. Serena Diokno rescheduled it on February 5, 1993. Named
as members of the dissertation panel were Drs. E. Arsenio Manuel, Serafin Quiason, Sri
Skandarajah, Noel Teodoro, and Isagani Medina, the last included as the dean's representative.
After going over private respondent's dissertation, Dr. Medina informed CSSP Dean Consuelo
Joaquin-Paz that there was a portion in private respondent's dissertation that was lifted, without
proper acknowledgment, from Balfour's Cyclopaedia of India and Eastern and Southern Asia
(1967), volume I, pp. 392-401 (3 v., Edward Balfour 1885 reprint) and from John Edye's article
entitled "Description of the Various Classes of Vessels Constructed and Employed by the Natives
of the Coasts of Coromandel, Malabar, and the Island of Ceylon for their Coasting Navigation" in
the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland Journal, volume I, pp. 1-14 (1833).2 [Stated
as 1883 in the Petition for Certiorari.]
Nonetheless, private respondent was allowed to defend her dissertation on February 5, 1993.
Four (4) out of the five (5) panelists gave private respondent a passing mark for her oral defense
by affixing their signatures on the approval form. These were Drs. Manuel, Quiason, Skandarajah,
and Teodoro. Dr. Quiason added the following qualification to his signature:
Ms. Arokiaswamy must incorporate the suggestions I made during the successful defense of her
Ph.D. thesis.3 [Records, p. 26.]
Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form but added the following comment:
Pipirmahan ko ang pagsang-ayon/di pagsang-ayon kapag nakita ko na ang mga revisions ng
dissertation.4 [Ibid.]
Dr. Teodoro added the following note to his signature:
Kailangang isagawa ang mga mahahalagang pagbabago at ipakita sa panel ang bound copies.5
[Supra, note 3.]
In a letter, dated March 5, 1993 and addressed to her thesis adviser, Dr. Manuel, private
respondent requested a meeting with the panel members, especially Dr. Medina, to discuss the
amendments suggested by the panel members during the oral defense. The meeting was held at
the dean's office with Dean Paz, private respondent, and a majority of the defense panel
present.6 [Dr. Manuel Teodoro was absent during the meeting.] During the meeting, Dean Paz
remarked that a majority vote of the panel members was sufficient for a student to pass,
notwithstanding the failure to obtain the consent of the Dean's representative.
On March 24, 1993, the CSSP College Faculty Assembly approved private respondent's
graduation pending submission of final copies of her dissertation.
In April 1993, private respondent submitted copies of her supposedly revised dissertation to Drs.
Manuel, Skandarajah, and Quiason, who expressed their assent to the dissertation. Petitioners
maintain, however, that private respondent did not incorporate the revisions suggested by the
panel members in the final copies of her dissertation.

Private respondent left a copy of her dissertation in Dr. Teodoro's office on April 15, 1993 and
proceeded to submit her dissertation to the CSSP without the approvals of Dr. Medina and Dr.
Teodoro, relying on Dean Paz's March 5, 1993 statement.
Dr. Teodoro later indicated his disapproval, while Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form.7
[Records, p. 173.]
Dean Paz then accepted private respondent's dissertation in partial fulfillment of the course
requirements for the doctorate degree in Anthropology.
In a letter to Dean Paz, dated April 17, 1993, private respondent expressed concern over matters
related to her dissertation. She sought to explain why the signature of Dr. Medina was not affixed
to the revision approval form. Private respondent said that since she already had the approval of
a majority of the panel members, she no longer showed her dissertation to Dr. Medina nor tried
to obtain the latter's signature on the revision approval form. She likewise expressed her
disappointment over the CSSP administration and charged Drs. Diokno and Medina with
maliciously working for the disapproval of her dissertation, and further warned Dean Paz against
encouraging perfidious acts against her.
On April 17, 1993, the University Council met to approve the list of candidates for graduation for
the second semester of school year 1992-1993. The list, which was endorsed to the Board of
Regents for final approval, included private respondent's name.
On April 21, 1993, Dean Paz sent a letter to Dr. Milagros Ibe, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
requesting the exclusion of private respondent's name from the list of candidates for graduation,
pending clarification of the problems regarding her dissertation. Her letter reads:8 [Records, p.
39.]
Abril 21, 1993
Dr. Milagros Ibe
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
Quezon Hall, Diliman, Q.C.
Mahal na Dr. Ibe,
Mahigpit ko pong hinihiling na hwag munang isama ang pangalan ni Ms. Arokiaswam[y] William
Margaret Celine sa listahan ng mga bibigyan ng degri na Ph.D. (Anthropology) ngayon[g]
semester, dahil sa mga malubhang bintang nya sa ilang myembro ng panel para sa oral defense
ng disertasyon nya at sa mga akusasyon ng ilan sa mga ito sa kanya.
Naniniwala po kami na dapat mailinaw muna ang ilang bagay bago makonfer ang degri kay Ms.
Arokiaswam[y]. Kelangan po ito para mapangalagaan ang istandard ng pinakamataas na degree
ng Unibersidad.
(Sgd.) CONSUELO JOAQUIN-PAZ, Ph.D.
Dekano
Apparently, however, Dean Paz's letter did not reach the Board of Regents on time, because the
next day, April 22, 1993, the Board approved the University Council's recommendation for the
graduation of qualified students, including private respondent. Two days later, on April 24, 1993,
private respondent graduated with the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology.

On the other hand, Dean Paz also wrote a letter to private respondent, dated April 21, 1993, that
she would not be granted an academic clearance unless she substantiated the accusations
contained in her letter dated April 17, 1993.
In her letter, dated April 27, 1993, private respondent claimed that Dr. Medina's unfavorable
attitude towards her dissertation was a reaction to her failure to include him and Dr. Francisco in
the list of panel members; that she made the revisions proposed by Drs. Medina and Teodoro in
the revised draft of her dissertation; and that Dr. Diokno was guilty of harassment.
In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, dated May 1, 1993, Dr. Medina formally charged private
respondent with plagiarism and recommended that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn.9
[Rollo, pp. 201-202.]
On May 13, 1993, Dean Paz formed an ad hoc committee, composed of faculty members from
various disciplines and chaired by Dr. Eva Duka-Ventura, to investigate the plagiarism charge
against private respondent. Meanwhile, she recommended to U.P. Diliman Chancellor, Dr.
Emerlinda Roman, that the Ph.D. degree conferred on private respondent be withdrawn.10 [Id., p.
133.]
In a letter, dated June 7, 1993, Dean Paz informed private respondent of the charges against
her.11 [Records, p. 346.]
On June 15, 1993, the Ventura Committee submitted a report to Dean Paz, finding at least ninety
(90) instances or portions in private respondent's thesis which were lifted from sources without
proper or due acknowledgment.
On July 28, 1993, the CSSP College Assembly unanimously approved the recommendation to
withdraw private respondent's doctorate degree and forwarded its recommendation to the
University Council. The University Council, in turn, approved and endorsed the same
recommendation to the Board of Regents on August 16, 1993.
On September 6, 1993, the Board of Regents deferred action on the recommendation to study
the legal implications of its approval.12 [Id., p. 179.]
Meanwhile, in a letter, dated September 23, 1993, U.P. Diliman Chancellor Emerlinda Roman
summoned private respondent to a meeting on the same day and asked her to submit her
written explanation to the charges against her.
During the meeting, Chancellor Roman informed private respondent of the charges and provided
her a copy of the findings of the investigating committee.13 [Records, p. 49.] Private respondent,
on the other hand, submitted her written explanation in a letter dated September 25, 1993.
Another meeting was held on October 8, 1993 between Chancellor Roman and private
respondent to discuss her answer to the charges. A third meeting was scheduled on October 27,
1993 but private respondent did not attend it, alleging that the Board of Regents had already
decided her case before she could be fully heard.
On October 11, 1993, private respondent wrote to Dr. Emil Q. Javier, U.P. President, alleging that
some members of the U.P. administration were playing politics in her case.14 [Id., p. 409.] She
sent another letter, dated December 14, 1993, to Dr. Armand Fabella, Chairman of the Board of
Regents, complaining that she had not been afforded due process and claiming that U.P. could no
longer withdraw her degree since her dissertation had already been accepted by the CSSP.15
[Id., pp. 403-406.]

Meanwhile, the U.P. Office of Legal Services justified the position of the University Council in its
report to the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents, in its February 1, 1994 and March 24, 1994
meetings, further deferred action thereon.
On July 11, 1994, private respondent sent a letter to the Board of Regents requesting a reinvestigation of her case. She stressed that under the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct
and Discipline, it was the student disciplinary tribunal which had jurisdiction to decide cases of
dishonesty and that the withdrawal of a degree already conferred was not one of the authorized
penalties which the student disciplinary tribunal could impose.
On July 28, 1994, the Board of Regents decided to release private respondent's transcript of
grades without annotation although it showed that private respondent passed her dissertation
with 12 units of credit.
On August 17, 1994, Chancellor Roger Posadas issued Administrative Order No. 94-94
constituting a special committee composed of senior faculty members from the U.P. units outside
Diliman to review the University Council's recommendation to withdraw private respondent's
degree. With the approval of the Board of Regents and the U.P. Diliman Executive Committee,
Posadas created a five-man committee, chaired by Dr. Paulino B. Zafaralla, with members
selected from a list of nominees screened by Dr. Emerenciana Arcellana, then a member of the
Board of Regents. On August 31, 1994, the members of the Zafaralla committee and private
respondent met at U.P. Los Banos.
Meanwhile, on August 23, 1994, the U.P. Diliman Registrar released to private respondent a copy
of her transcript of grades and certificate of graduation.
In a letter to Chancellor Posadas, dated September 1, 1994, private respondent requested that
the Zafaralla committee be provided with copies of the U.P. Charter (Act No. 1870), the U.P. Rules
and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline, her letter-response to Chancellor Roman,
dated September 25, 1993, as well as all her other communications.
On September 19, 1994, Chancellor Posadas obtained the Zafaralla Committee's report, signed
by its chairman, recommending the withdrawal of private respondent's doctorate degree. The
report stated:16 [Rollo, p. 137.]
After going through all the pertinent documents of the case and interviewing Ms. Arokiaswamy
William, the following facts were established:
1...........There is overwhelming evidence of massive lifting from a published source word for word
and, at times, paragraph by paragraph without any acknowledgment of the source, even by a
mere quotation mark. At least 22 counts of such documented liftings were identified by the
Committee. These form part of the approximately ninety (90) instances found by the Committee
created by the Dean of the College and subsequently verified as correct by the Special
Committee. These instances involved the following forms of intellectual dishonesty: direct
lifting/copying without acknowledgment, full/partial lifting with improper documentation and
substitution of terms or words (e.g., Tamil in place of Sanskrit, Tamilization in place of
Indianization) from an acknowledged source in support of her thesis (attached herewith is a copy
of the documents for reference); and
2...........Ms. Arokiaswamy William herself admits of being guilty of the allegation of plagiarism.
Fact is, she informed the Special Committee that she had been admitting having lifted several
portions in her dissertation from various sources since the beginning.
In view of the overwhelming proof of massive lifting and also on the admission of Ms.
Arokiaswamy William that she indeed plagiarized, the Committee strongly supports the

recommendation of the U.P. Diliman Council to withdraw the doctoral degree of Ms. Margaret
Celine Arokiaswamy William.
On the basis of the report, the University Council, on September 24, 1994, recommended to the
Board of Regents that private respondent be barred in the future from admission to the
University either as a student or as an employee.
On January 4, 1995, the secretary of the Board of Regents sent private respondent the following
letter:17 [Records, p. 192.]
4 January 1995
Ms. Margaret Celine Arokiaswamy William
Department of Anthropology
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
U.P. Diliman, Quezon City
Dear Ms. Arokiaswamy William:
This is to officially inform you about the action taken by the Board of Regents at its 1081st and
1082nd meetings held last 17 November and 16 December 1994 regarding your case, the
excerpts from the minutes of which are attached herewith.
Please be informed that the members present at the 1081st BOR meeting on 17 November 1994
resolved, by a majority decision, to withdraw your Ph.D. degree as recommended by the U.P.
Diliman University Council and as concurred with by the External Review Panel composed of
senior faculty from U.P. Los Banos and U.P. Manila. These faculty members were chosen by lot
from names submitted by the University Councils of U.P. Los Banos and U.P. Manila.
In reply to your 14 December 1994 letter requesting that you be given a good lawyer by the
Board, the Board, at its 1082nd meeting on 16 December 1994, suggested that you direct your
request to the Office of Legal Aid, College of Law, U.P. Diliman.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.)
VIVENCIO R. JOSE
Secretary of the University
and of the Board of Regents
On January 18, 1995, private respondent wrote a letter to Commissioner Sedfrey Ordonez,
Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, asking the commission's intervention.18
[Commissioner Ordonez sent a letter to the Board of Regents requesting it to defer action on
private respondent's case until the latter had been given the opportunity to be heard. U.P.
President Emil Q. Javier responded with a letter, dated February 17, 1995, assuring Commissioner
Ordonez that the decision on private respondent's case was arrived at after compliance with the
requirements of due process.] In a letter, dated February 14, 1995, to Secretary Ricardo Gloria,
Chairman of the Board of Regents, she asked for a reinvestigation of her case. She also sought
an audience with the Board of Regents and/or the U.P. President, which request was denied by
President Javier, in a letter dated June 2, 1995.
On August 10, 1995, private respondent then filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and damages, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q95-24690 and assigned to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.19 [It appears
that the case was later transferred to Branch 227.] She alleged that petitioners had unlawfully
withdrawn her degree without justification and without affording her procedural due process. She

prayed that petitioners be ordered to restore her degree and to pay her P500,000.00 as moral
and exemplary damages and P1,500,000.00 as compensation for lost earnings.
On August 6, 1996, the trial court, Branch 227, rendered a decision dismissing the petition for
mandamus for lack of merit.20 [Rollo, pp. 83-97.] Private respondent appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which on December 16, 1997, reversed the lower court. The dispositive portion of the
appellate court's decision reads:21 [Id., p. 56.]
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby reversed and set aside. Respondents are
ordered to restore to petitioner her degree of Ph.D. in Anthropology.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN GRANTING THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS
AND ORDERING PETITIONERS TO RESTORE RESPONDENT'S DOCTORAL DEGREE.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE DOCTORAL
DEGREE GIVEN RESPONDENT BY U.P. CANNOT BE RECALLED WITHOUT VIOLATING HER RIGHT TO
ENJOYMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TO JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN DEPRIVING PETITIONERS OF THEIR
RIGHT TO SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.22 [Rollo, pp. 33-34.]
Petitioners argue that private respondent failed to show that she had been unlawfully excluded
from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which she is entitled so as to justify the
issuance of the writ of mandamus. They also contend that she failed to prove that the restoration
of her degree is a ministerial duty of U.P. or that the withdrawal of the degree violated her right
to the enjoyment of intellectual property.
On the other hand, private respondent, unassisted by counsel, argue that petitioners acted
arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion in withdrawing her degree even prior to verifying
the truth of the plagiarism charge against her; and that as her answer to the charges had not
been forwarded to the members of the investigating committees, she was deprived of the
opportunity to comment or refute their findings.
In addition, private respondent maintains that petitioners are estopped from withdrawing her
doctorate degree; that petitioners acted contrary to 9 of the U.P. Charter and the U.P. Rules and
Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline of the University, which according to her, does
not authorize the withdrawal of a degree as a penalty for erring students; and that only the
college committee or the student disciplinary tribunal may decide disciplinary cases, whose
report must be signed by a majority of its members.
We find petitioners' contention to be meritorious.
Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the act required
to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically
enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from

the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.23 [Rules of Court, Rule 65, 3;
Anchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, 268 SCRA 301 (1997)] In University of the Philippines Board of
Regents v. Ligot-Telan,24 [227 SCRA 342 (1993)] this Court ruled that the writ was not available
to restrain U.P. from the exercise of its academic freedom. In that case, a student who was found
guilty of dishonesty and ordered suspended for one year by the Board of Regents, filed a petition
for mandamus and obtained from the lower court a temporary restraining order stopping U.P.
from carrying out the order of suspension. In setting aside the TRO and ordering the lower court
to dismiss the student's petition, this Court said:
The lower court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction of May
29, 1993. The issuance of the said writ was based on the lower court's finding that the
implementation of the disciplinary sanction of suspension on Nadal "would work injustice to the
petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his course, and consequently, in getting a decent and
good paying job." Sadly, such a ruling considers only the situation of Nadal without taking into
account the circumstances, clearly of his own making, which led him into such a predicament.
More importantly, it has completely disregarded the overriding issue of academic freedom which
provides more than ample justification for the imposition of a disciplinary sanction upon an erring
student of an institution of higher learning.
From the foregoing arguments, it is clear that the lower court should have restrained itself from
assuming jurisdiction over the petition filed by Nadal. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful
cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the petitioner being required. It is of
no avail against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion
or judgment.25 [Supra, at 361-362.]
In this case, the trial court dismissed private respondent's petition precisely on grounds of
academic freedom but the Court of Appeals reversed holding that private respondent was denied
due process. It said:
It is worthy to note that during the proceedings taken by the College Assembly culminating in its
recommendation to the University Council for the withdrawal of petitioner's Ph.D. degree,
petitioner was not given the chance to be heard until after the withdrawal of the degree was
consummated. Petitioner's subsequent letters to the U.P. President proved unavailing.26 [Rollo,
pp. 54-55.]
As the foregoing narration of facts in this case shows, however, various committees had been
formed to investigate the charge that private respondent had committed plagiarism and, in all
the investigations held, she was heard in her defense. Indeed, if any criticism may be made of
the university proceedings before private respondent was finally stripped of her degree, it is that
there were too many committee and individual investigations conducted, although all resulted in
a finding that private respondent committed dishonesty in submitting her doctoral dissertation
on the basis of which she was conferred the Ph.D. degree.
Indeed, in administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to
explain one's side of a controversy or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.27 [Helpmate, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. 112323, July 28,
1997; M. Ramirez Industries v. The Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. 89894,
January 3, 1997.] A party who has availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot
tenably claim to have been denied due process.28 [Naguiat v. National Labor Relations
Commission, 269 SCRA 564 (1997)]
In this case, private respondent was informed in writing of the charges against her29 [Records,
pp. 48-49.] and afforded opportunities to refute them. She was asked to submit her written
explanation, which she forwarded on September 25, 1993.30 [Id., pp. 50-58.] Private respondent
then met with the U.P. chancellor and the members of the Zafaralla committee to discuss her

case. In addition, she sent several letters to the U.P. authorities explaining her position.31 [Id.,
pp. 59-65; 79-80.]
It is not tenable for private respondent to argue that she was entitled to have an audience before
the Board of Regents. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type
proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice.32 [National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, 283
SCRA 275 (1997)] It is noteworthy that the U.P. Rules do not require the attendance of persons
whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board of Regents.33 [University of the
Philippines v. Ligot-Telan, 227 SCRA 342 (1993)]
Nor indeed was private respondent entitled to be furnished a copy of the report of the Zafaralla
committee as part of her right to due process. In Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong,34
[222 SCRA 644 (1993)] we held:
Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded the
opportunity to see and examine the written statements which became the basis of petitioners'
February 14, 1991 order, they were denied procedural due process. Granting that they were
denied such opportunity, the same may not be said to detract from the observance of due
process, for disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross
examination. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students' participation in a
hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. . .
In this case, in granting the writ of mandamus, the Court of Appeals held:
First. Petitioner graduated from the U.P. with a doctorate degree in Anthropology. After
graduation, the contact between U.P. and petitioner ceased. Petitioner is no longer within the
ambit of the disciplinary powers of the U.P. As a graduate, she is entitled to the right and
enjoyment of the degree she has earned. To recall the degree, after conferment, is not only
arbitrary, unreasonable, and an act of abuse, but a flagrant violation of petitioner's right of
enjoyment to intellectual property.
Second. Respondents aver that petitioner's graduation was a mistake.
Unfortunately this "mistake" was arrived at after almost a year after graduation. Considering that
the members of the thesis panel, the College Faculty Assembly, and the U.P. Council are all men
and women of the highest intellectual acumen and integrity, as respondents themselves aver,
suspicion is aroused that the alleged "mistake" might not be the cause of withdrawal but some
other hidden agenda which respondents do not wish to reveal.
At any rate, We cannot countenance the plight the petitioner finds herself enmeshed in as a
consequence of the acts complained of. Justice and equity demand that this be rectified by
restoring the degree conferred to her after her compliance with the academic and other related
requirements.
Art. XIV, 5 (2) of the Constitution provides that "[a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning." This is nothing new. The 1935 Constitution35 [Art. XIV, 5.] and
the 1973 Constitution36 [Art. XV, 8 (2)] likewise provided for the academic freedom or, more
precisely, for the institutional autonomy of universities and institutions of higher learning. As
pointed out by this Court in Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology,37
[68 SCRA 277 (1975)] it is a freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning" which is thus
given "a wide sphere of authority certainly extending to the choice of students." If such
institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also
determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates.

Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a
university has the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. This
freedom of a university does not terminate upon the "graduation" of a student, as the Court of
Appeals held. For it is precisely the "graduation" of such a student that is in question. It is
noteworthy that the investigation of private respondent's case began before her graduation. If
she was able to join the graduation ceremonies on April 24, 1993, it was because of too many
investigations conducted before the Board of Regents finally decided she should not have been
allowed to graduate.
Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted to institutions of higher learning, for the
constitutional grant of academic freedom, to quote again from Garcia v. Faculty Admission
Committee, Loyola School of Theology, "is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a
grudging fashion."
Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the highest governing body of the University of
the Philippines.38 [Act No. 1870, 4.] It has the power to confer degrees upon the
recommendation of the University Council.39 [Id., 9.] It follows that if the conferment of a degree
is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the observance
of due process, to withdraw what it has granted without violating a student's rights. An institution
of higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers that an academic degree it has conferred is
not rightfully deserved. Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a university's highest
academic degree upon an individual who has obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The
pursuit of academic excellence is the university's concern. It should be empowered, as an act of
self-defense, to take measures to protect itself from serious threats to its integrity.
While it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue their education, the USC as an
educational institution is also entitled to pursue its academic freedom and in the process has the
concomitant right to see to it that this freedom is not jeopardized.40 [Licup v. University of San
Carlos, 178 SCRA 637 (1989)]
In the case at bar, the Board of Regents determined, after due investigation conducted by a
committee composed of faculty members from different U.P. units, that private respondent
committed no less than ninety (90) instances of intellectual dishonesty in her dissertation. The
Board of Regents' decision to withdraw private respondent's doctorate was based on documents
on record including her admission that she committed the offense.41 [Records, p. 192.]
On the other hand, private respondent was afforded the opportunity to be heard and explain her
side but failed to refute the charges of plagiarism against her. Her only claim is that her
responses to the charges against her were not considered by the Board of Regents before it
rendered its decision. However, this claim was not proven. Accordingly, we must presume
regularity in the performance of official duties in the absence of proof to the contrary.42 [Rules of
Court, Rule 131, 3 (m)]
Very much the opposite of the position of the Court of Appeals that, since private respondent was
no longer a student of the U.P., the latter was no longer within the "ambit of disciplinary powers
of the U.P.," is private respondent's contention that it is the Student Disciplinary Tribunal which
had jurisdiction over her case because the charge is dishonesty. Private respondent invokes 5 of
the U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline which provides:
Jurisdiction. - All cases involving discipline of students under these rules shall be subject to the
jurisdiction of the student disciplinary tribunal, except the following cases which shall fall under
the jurisdiction of the appropriate college or unit;
(a)..........Violation of college or unit rules and regulations by students of the college, or

(b)..........Misconduct committed by students of the college or unit within its classrooms or

premises or in the course of an official activity;
Provided, that regional units of the University shall have original jurisdiction over all cases
involving students of such units.
Private respondent argues that under 25 (a) of the said Rules and Regulations, dishonesty in
relation to one's studies (i.e., plagiarism) may be punished only with suspension for at least one
(1) year.
As the above-quoted provision of 5 of the Rules and Regulations indicates, the jurisdiction of the
student disciplinary tribunal extends only to disciplinary actions. In this case, U.P. does not seek
to discipline private respondent. Indeed, as the appellate court observed, private respondent is
no longer within "the ambit of disciplinary powers of the U.P." Private respondent cannot even be
punished since, as she claims, the penalty for acts of dishonesty in administrative disciplinary
proceedings is suspension from the University for at least one year. What U.P., through the Board
of Regents, seeks to do is to protect its academic integrity by withdrawing from private
respondent an academic degree she obtained through fraud.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and the petition for
mandamus is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.