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

ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC.

G.R. No. 131522, July 19, 1999

FACTS: Pacita Habana et al., are authors and copyright owners of duly issued of the book,
College English For Today (CET). Respondent Felicidad Robles was the author of the book
Developing English Proficiency (DEP). Petitioners found that several pages of the respondent's
book are similar, if not all together a copy of petitioners' book. Habana et al. filed an action for
damages and injunction, alleging respondents infringement of copyrights, in violation of P.D. 49.
They allege 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.

On the other hand, Robles contends that the book DEP is the product of her own intellectual
creation, and was not a copy of any existing valid copyrighted book and that the similarities may
be due to the authors' exercise of the "right to fair use of copyrighted materials, as guides."

The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, absolving them of any liability. Later, the Court
of Appeals rendered judgment in favor of respondents Robles and Goodwill Trading Co., Inc. In
this appeal, petitioners submit that the appellate court erred in affirming the trial court's decision.

ISSUE: Whether Robles committed infringement in the production of DEP.

HELD: A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if not
identical with the text of CET. The court finds 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.

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.
 Pacita Habana vs Felicidad Robles
310 SCRA 522 (369 Phil. 764) Mercantile Law Intellectual Property Law on Copyright
Infringement
Pacita Habana and two others were the authors of College English for Today Series 1 and
2 (CET). While they were researching for books to assist them in updating their own book,
they chanced upon the book of Felicidad Robles entitled Developing English Proficiency
Books 1 and 2 (DEP). They discovered further that the book of Robles was strikingly similar
to the contents, scheme of presentation, illustrations and illustrative examples of CET. They
then sued Robles and her publisher (Goodwill Trading Co.) for infringement and/or unfair
competition with damages.
Robles, in her defense, alleged that her sources were from foreign books; that in their field,
similarity in styles cannot be avoided since they come from the same background and
orientation. The trial court as well as the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Robles.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of Appeals is correct.
HELD: No. A perusal of the records yields several pages of the book DEP that are similar if
not identical with the text of CET. In several other pages the treatment and manner of
presentation of the topics of DEP are similar if not a rehash of that contained in CET. 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? Robles act of lifting from
the book of Habana et al substantial portions of discussions and examples, and her failure to
acknowledge the same in her book is an infringement of Habana et als copyrights.
The Supreme Court also elucidated that 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.
 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 131522 July 19, 1999

PACITA I. HABANA, ALICIA L. CINCO and JOVITA N. FERNANDO, petitioners,
vs.
FELICIDAD C. ROBLES and GOODWILL TRADING CO., INC., respondents.

DECISION
PARDO, J.:
The case before us is a petition for review on certiorari 1 to set aside the (a) decision or the
Court of Appeals 2, and (b) the resolution denying petitioners motion for reconsideration, 3 in
which the appellate court affirmed the trial courts dismissal of the complaint for infringement
and/or unfair competition and damages but deleted the award for attorneys 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 respondents 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 respondents 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 copyrighted 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 attorneys fees and defendant
Goodwill for P5,000.00 attorneys 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. 124-9211
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 authors or
proprietors 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 Burkes Speech on Conciliation, Boerigs Competence in English and
Broughtons, Edmund Burkes Collection.
xxx xxx xxx
Appellants reliance on the last paragraph on Section II 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 courts
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 wasanimus 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 writers 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)
xxx xxx xxx
(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:
xxx xxx xxx
(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 latters research work and compilation and
misrepresented them as her own. She circulated the book DEP for commercial use did not
acknowledged 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 authors
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.
Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., I dissent, please see dissenting opinion.
Melo, J., no part, personal reason.
University of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 37 SCRA 64
Case Digest
FACTS:

Herein respondents Camilo Pea and Domingo Cajipe (and seven others) were administratively charged
and investigated by a UP-PGH Investigating Committee for grave misconduct and dishonesty and
infidelity in the custody of public documents" in their capacity as Assistant Cashier and Special Disbursing
Officer and Collection Officer, respectively, of the PGH.

After several hearings, the Board of Regents adopted a resolution approving the report of the committee
and fixing a penalty of dismissal for the respondents. Herein respondents then filed a petition for injunction
in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to restrain the UP President from dismissing them and
nullify the findings of the investigating committee. They claimed that, as civil service employees, the power
to dismiss them did not belong to the UP President but to the Civil Service Commissioner, subject to appeal
to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. The respondents also filed a supplemental petition for injunction,
impleading the Board of Regents of the UP and the Director of the PGH as additional respondents. The
trial court granted the both original and supplementary petition.

Herein petitioners then appealed to the Court of Appeals but the trial court's decision was sustained. Hence,
the instant petition for Review by Certiorari by the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

WON the dismissal of the respondents by the Board of Regents was final, or requires further action by the
Civil Service Commission.

RULING:

Legislature has established specific exceptions to the exclusive authority of the Civil Service Commissioner,
by lodging in various entities, the power over their employees. One instance is the UP Charter, Section
6(e), which vested in the Board of Regents, the power to appoint, to fix employee compensation and to
remove them for cause after an investigation and hearing. The existence of these exceptions to the general
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commissioner is also confirmed by the Civil Service Law of 1959 (R.A. No.
2260).

Pursuant to the authority granted to the President of the Philippines by R.A. No. 51, PGH was transferred
from the Office of the President to the University of the Philippines by virtue of E.O. No. 94. The act of the
Chief Executive in transferring the Philippine General Hospital from the Office of the President to the
University of the Philippines clearly evinced the intention to place the Hospital employees under the
administrative power of the University in matters of their discipline, suspension or removal, on a par with
the other employees of the University. Had the intent been otherwise, the 1947 Executive Order No. 94
would have excepted or reserved the disciplinary power of the Commissioner of the Civil Service over the
transferred employees.

Ultimately, which is important is that the provisions of Article XII, Section 4, of the Constitution that "no
officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by
law," as well as the due process clause of the Bill of Rights, should be fully observed and implemented;
and the record is clear that in the case of herein respondents, no deficiency exists on this score. Pursuant
to the express precept in the University charter [in its Section 6 (e)], the herein respondents were
investigated by a committee of the University and the committee recommended their dismissal after mature
deliberation. Before the proceedings were closed, these respondents manifested that they had no
complaints regarding the procedure adopted, and were satisfied with the way the investigation was
conducted; and the Court of Appeals also explicitly stated in its decision that it did not find any violation of
the substantive rights of the respondents.
Whether the final decision should be made by the Civil Service Commissioner, and on appeal by the Civil
Service Board of Appeals, or by the President of the University and its Board of Regents, does not in any
way impair any of the substantial rights of the respondents. However, the autonomy necessary to the
fulfillment of the educational and academic mission of the University demands that the administrative
decision of its authorities be made final as to its employees, there being no statutory or administrative
provision to the contrary. Thus, the President and Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines
possess full and final authority in the disciplining, suspension and removal of the civil service employees of
the University, including those of the Philippine General Hospital, independently of the Commissioner of
Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals.

The writ of certiorari applied for is granted, and the decisions under appeal are reversed and set aside.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 134625. August 31, 1999]

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 Appeals[1] in CA-G.R. SP No.
42788, dated December 16, 1997, which granted private respondents 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 visitors 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 deans representative.
After going over private respondents dissertation, Dr. Medina informed CSSP Dean Consuelo
Joaquin-Paz that there was a portion in private respondents dissertation that was lifted, without
proper acknowledgment, from Balfours Cyclopaedia of India and Eastern and Southern
Asia (1967), volume I, pp. 392-401 (3 v., Edward Balfour 1885 reprint) and from John Edyes
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]
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]

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]

Dr. Teodoro added the following note to his signature:

Kailangang isagawa ang mga mahahalagang pagbabago at ipakita sa panel ang bound
copies.[5]

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
deans office with Dean Paz, private respondent, and a majority of the defense panel
present.[6] 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 Deans
representative.
 On March 24, 1993, the CSSP College Faculty Assembly approved private respondents
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. Teodoros 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 Pazs March 5, 1993 statement.
Dr. Teodoro later indicated his disapproval, while Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form.[7]
Dean Paz then accepted private respondents 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 latters 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 respondents name.
On April 21, 1993, Dean Paz sent a letter to Dr. Milagros Ibe, Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs, requesting the exclusion of private respondents name from the list of candidates for
graduation, pending clarification of the problems regarding her dissertation. Her letter reads:[8]

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 Pazs letter did not reach the Board of Regents on time, because
the next day, April 22, 1993, the Board approved the University Councils 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. Medinas 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]
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]
In a letter, dated June 7, 1993, Dean Paz informed private respondent of the charges against
her.[11]
On June 15, 1993, the Ventura Committee submitted a report to Dean Paz, finding at least
ninety (90) instances or portions in private respondents 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 respondents 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]
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] 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] 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]
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 re-
investigation 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 respondents 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 Councils recommendation to withdraw private respondents
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 Baos.
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 Committees report, signed
by its chairman, recommending the withdrawal of private respondents doctorate degree.The report
stated:[16]
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]

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 Baos and U.P. Manila. These faculty members were chosen by lot
from names submitted by the University Councils of U.P. Los Baos 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 Ordoez,
Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, asking the commissions intervention.[18] 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.
Q-95-24690 and assigned to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.[19] 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] Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on
December 16, 1997, reversed the lower court. The dispositive portion of the appellate courts
decision reads:[21]

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 RESPONDENTS 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]

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] In University of the Philippines
Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan,[24] 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 students petition, this Court said:

[T]he 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
courts 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]

In this case, the trial court dismissed private respondents 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
petitioners Ph.D. degree, petitioner was not given the chance to be heard until after
the withdrawal of the degree was consummated. Petitioners subsequent letters to
the U.P. President proved unavailing.[26]

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 ones side of a controversy or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.[27] A party who has availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot tenably
claim to have been denied due process.[28]
 In this case, private respondent was informed in writing of the charges against her[29] and
afforded opportunities to refute them. She was asked to submit her written explanation, which she
forwarded on September 25, 1993.[30] 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]
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] 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]
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] 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 petitioners right of enjoyment to
intellectual property.

Second. Respondents aver that petitioners 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 Constitution[35] and the 1973
Constitution[36] 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] 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 respondents 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] It has the power to confer degrees upon the recommendation of the University
Council.[39] 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 students 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 universitys highest academic degree upon an individual who
has obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic excellence is the
universitys 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]
 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 respondents doctorate was based on documents on
record including her admission that she committed the offense.[41]
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]
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 respondents 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 ones 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.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.