Kim Go was suspended from Colegio de San Juan de Letran for participating in a forbidden fraternity hazing ritual. His parents, the Gos, claimed this was an unlawful dismissal and denial of due process. However, the court found that:
1) Letters from Mrs. Go showed they knew it was a suspension, not dismissal.
2) School rules banned high school fraternities.
3) Procedures used were sufficient for a student disciplinary case.
4) There was no evidence the school acted in bad faith or caused actual damages. Therefore, the Gos' claims were denied.
Kim Go was suspended from Colegio de San Juan de Letran for participating in a forbidden fraternity hazing ritual. His parents, the Gos, claimed this was an unlawful dismissal and denial of due process. However, the court found that:
1) Letters from Mrs. Go showed they knew it was a suspension, not dismissal.
2) School rules banned high school fraternities.
3) Procedures used were sufficient for a student disciplinary case.
4) There was no evidence the school acted in bad faith or caused actual damages. Therefore, the Gos' claims were denied.
Kim Go was suspended from Colegio de San Juan de Letran for participating in a forbidden fraternity hazing ritual. His parents, the Gos, claimed this was an unlawful dismissal and denial of due process. However, the court found that:
1) Letters from Mrs. Go showed they knew it was a suspension, not dismissal.
2) School rules banned high school fraternities.
3) Procedures used were sufficient for a student disciplinary case.
4) There was no evidence the school acted in bad faith or caused actual damages. Therefore, the Gos' claims were denied.
1-E conduct on the part of the respondents to Spouses Go v. Colegio de San Juan de justify the award of damages Letran HELD: FACTS: Mrs. Gos letter specifically requested that Kim Go was named among several high Kims suspension be deferred proving that school students involved and present at they were well aware that is was not a a hazing rite of Tau Gamma held on dismissal. The request to allow Kim to take October 3, 2001 in the house of one his examination further supports the Dulce, in Tondo, Manila. conclusion that Kim had not been Kims mother, Mrs. Angelita Go, was dismissed. then informed at the Parents- Teacher Order No. 20, s. 1991 (Prohibition of conference by Mr. Rosarda of her sons Fraternities and Sororities in Elementary participation as a fraternity member and Secondary Schools) of the then Dept. The fourth year students involved were of Education, Culture, & Sports is clear that to be allowed to graduate from Letran, the intent of the department is to apply whereas those who werent were prohibition against fraternity membership for allowed to finish their current school all elementary and high school students, year but were to be barred from regardless of their school of enrollment. subsequent enrollment in Letran. Letrans rule against high school students joining fraternities is reasonable because of Mrs. Go later on submitted a request for the adult oriented activities often associated the deferment of Kims suspension so when most, if not all, high school students that he could take a previously are minors. This is a rule clearly stated in its scheduled exam. enrollment contracts and student Several conferences addressing the handbooks notably acknowledged by the students involved in the fraternity were signature of Mrs. Go on the contract. gone unattended by the spouses Go Guzman v. National University: Due despite consistent notification. process in student disciplinary cases does The respondents proposed that the not entail proceedings and hearings similar students and their parents sign a pro- to those prescribed for actions and forma agreement to signify their proceedings in courts of justice. They may conformity with their suspension to be summary, and cross-examination is not which Mr. and Mrs. Go didnt sign, an essential part thereof. The viewing and refusing to accept the findings that Kim examining of written statements is was a fraternity member, and that there admissible in due process. was a lack of due process in the The written notice rule is to inform the findings. student of the disciplinary charge against Petitioners filed a complaint for him and to enable him to suitably prepare a damages claiming that respondents had defense. Kim had enough time to prepare unlawfully dismissed Kim, and for the his response. The essence of due process, compensation for business opportunity the opportunity to be heard, had been given. losses they have suffered while Records can confirm that respondents did personally attending to Kims disciplinary not act with bad faith, malice, fraud, or case. improper or willful motive or conduct in ISSUE: disciplining Kim. No actual damages either 1. WON petitioners were denied due as Mr. Gos testimony that he neglected his process in the opportunity to be heard in business affairs to attend to Kims case is Kims disciplinary case based on speculation. 2. WON there was bad faith, malice, fraud,