Professional Documents
Culture Documents
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
any existing contract either with the students or with the intervening
teachers; Courts have no power to make contracts for the parties.—It is
beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is consid-ered
enrolled for one semester, It is provided in Paragraph 137 Manual of
Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college student registers in a
school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester. Likewise,
it is provided in the Manual, that the “written contracts” required for college
teachers are for “one semester.” It is thus evident that after the close of the
first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has any existing contract either with
the students or with the intervening teachers. Such being the case, the charge
of denial of due process is untenable. It is a time-honored principle that
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
contracts are respected as the law between the contracting parties (Henson
vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 72456, February 19, 1987,
citing: Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 99 SCRA 722; Escano vs. Court of
Appeals, 100 SCRA 197). The contract having been terminated, there is no
more contract to speak of. The school cannot be compelled to enter into
another contract with said students and teachers. “The courts, be they the
original trial court or the appellate court, have no power to make contracts
for the parties.” (Henson vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., supra).
Same; Same; Same; Exceptions to the rule that the court accords
respect to factual findings of administrative tribunals.—It is well settled that
by reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from the handling
of specific matters falling under their respective jurisdictions, the Court
ordinarily accords respect if not finality to factual findings of administrative
tribunals, unless the factual findings are not supported by evidence; where
the findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition or collusion; where the
procedure which led to the factual findings is irregular; when palpable errors
are committed; or when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or
capriciousness is manifest. (Ateneo de Manila University vs. Court of
Appeals, 145 SCRA 106 (1986); citing: International Hardwood and Veneer
Co. of the Philippines vs. Leonardo, 117 SCRA 967; Baguio Country Club
Corporation vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 118 SCRA 557;
Sichangco vs. Commissioner of Immigration, 94 SCRA 61 and Eusebio vs.
Sociedad Agricola de Balarin, 16 SCRA 569.)
10
with respect to the academic activities of the students and the distribution of
teaching loads among the teachers, the respondent school has created new
classes for the petitioners and the intervening teachers” beginning
November 20,1986.
11
filed yet another motion “to re-enroll.” It is not controverted that despite our
reinstatement directive, the respondents failed and refused to comply
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
therewith as far as the students are concerned. For such an act of defiance, it
is my opinion that they are liable for contempt.
PARAS, J.:
“On the exercise of student’s democratic rights, it has been agreed that
protest actions can be conducted any day as long as they meet the
12
following requirements:
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
b) that the protest action be removed to the PSBA parking lot if it will
exceed the 1:00 time limit;
c) that if the protest move exceeds 1:00 it will be limited only up to
2:30 pm;
d) However, before any action is taken the organizers of the protest
action should secure a permit 6 days before, or if on the same day,
it still be under the ‘first-come-first-served’ basis in the use of
facilities, volume of sound system shall be adjusted so as not to
disturb classes.
“It is the firm stand of the administration of PSBA that it will not allow
the students to directly participate in the policy-making body of the school,
as this is provided by law. However, the administration will be open to
suggestions and questions, especially those regarding tuition fee increases
and other policies that directly affect us.”
31). Another demand letter was made by Counsel for the students
Atty. Alan Romullo Yap, also to the President, Board of Trustees, to
enroll his clients within forty-eight (48) hours (RoIIo, p. 33). All
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
14
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
15
STUDENT-RESPONDENTS
FACULTY-RESPONDENTS
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
17
facie the violation by the majority of the petitioners of the rules and
regulations of respondent school (Rollo, p. 793). The Court further
resolved to require respondent school to show cause why it should
not be adjudged in contempt for refusing to reinstate the intervenors-
faculty members in the interim.
Respondents filed the manifestation on July 3, 1987 informing
this Court that they did not refuse to reinstate the intervenors/faculty
members; that they were in fact actually reinstated in compliance
with the Court’s temporary mandatory order (Rollo, p. 829). Hence,
the motion for contempt should be dismissed.
The pivotal issue of this case is whether or not there has been
deprivation of due process for petitioners-students who have been
barred from re-enrollment and for intervenors-teachers whose
services have been terminated as faculty members, on account of
their participation in the demonstration or protest charged by
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
18
that after the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no longer has
any existing contract either with the students or with the intervening
teachers. Such being the case, the charge of denial of due process is
untenable. It is a time-honored principle that contracts are respected
as the law between the contracting parties (Henson vs. Intermediate
Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 72456, February 19, 1987, citing:
Castro vs. Court of Appeals, 99 SCRA 722; Escano vs. Court of
Appeals, 100 SCRA 197). The contract having been terminated,
there is no more contract to speak of. The school cannot be
compelled to enter into another contract with said students and
teachers. “The courts, be they the original trial court or the appellate
court, have no power to make contracts for the parties.” (Henson vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., supra).
Under similar circumstances where students have been refused
re-enrollment but without allegation of termination of contracts as in
the instant case, this Court has stressed, that due process in
disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and
hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
19
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
20
done both to the students and teachers on the one hand and the
school on the other, ordered an investigation to be conducted by the
school authorities, in the resolution of November 12,1986.
The investigating committee found among others that: there were
concerted mass assemblies conducted on October 2, 3, 7 and 8 at
PSBA Quezon City, which were participated in by said students and
teachers, and which disrupted classes. The disruption of classes and
the barricades in the school entrances constitute violations of
existing MECS and PSBA rules and regulations (Rollo, pp. 348–
349). It is ironic that many of those who claim that their human
rights have been violated are the very ones who emasculate the
human rights of the innocent majority.
Moreover, petitioners named in the report were found to be
academically deficient (Rollo, p. 273) while the intervening teachers
apart from participating in acts of illegality against the school were
found to have committed various acts of misconduct (Rollo, p. 275).
Accordingly, three students were recommended for exoneration
from all charges, and some to be honorably dismissed. Of the faculty
members eight were recommended to be exonerated of all charges,
two to be reprimanded, one for non-renewal of his semester-to-
semester appointment and two to be terminated (Rollo, pp. 359–
360).
The right of the school to refuse re-enrollment of students for
academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations has
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
21
but also the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and
objectives, and how best to attain them the grant being to institutions of
higher learning—free from outside coercion or interference save possibly
when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.” (Tangonan vs.
Paño, supra).
22
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
23
_______________
24
_______________
5 Sweet Lines vs. Teves, No. L-37750, May 19, 1978, 83 SCRA 361.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
25
statement, but that gives rise to yet another problem: Where does
one draw the line? As I have noted, it is too easy to invoke
“contract’ if it would suit one’s purpose, but it seems even easier to
cite “equity” if it would better serve that purpose.
Following the contract theory further, why was it necessary for
the Court to order the investigation of the case, pursuant to our
resolution of November 12,1986, when there seemed nothing more
to investigate, the petitioners’ supposed contracts
11
having expired?
The majority would rely on “full justice" —that elusive judicial
standard—to justify its action, but since, as the majority would so
clearly stress, the contract is the law between the parties, had not
“justice” been done upon the alleged expiration of the 12parties’
covenants? After all, is not “justice” presumed from the law?
I do not see as a matter of fact how “full justice” would be served
by ordering an inquiry. There is no debate that the petitioners had
been denied due process, in the absence of any “investigating
committee or official13 designated by the school authorities 14
to hear
and decide the case." In Guzman vs. National University, we held:
Under the Education Act of 1982, the petitioners, as students, have the right
among others “to freely choose their field of study subject to existing
curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation, except in
case of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations.”
Petitioners were being denied this right, or being disciplined, without due
process, in violation of the admonition in the Manual of Regulations for
Private Schools that "(n)o penalty shall be imposed upon any student except
for cause as defined in x x (the) Manual and/or in the school rules and
regulations are duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall have
been conducted.” This Court is therefore constrained, as in Beriña v.
Philippine Maritime Institute, to declare illegal this act 15of respondents of
imposing sanctions on students without due investigation.
_______________
11 Supra, 15.
12 See CIVIL CODE, Art. 10.
13 G.R. No. 76353, supra, 15.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
14 No. L-68288, July 11,1986,142 SCRA 699; also Beriña v. Philippine Maritime
Institute, No. L-58610, September 30, 1982, 117 SCRA 581.
15 Supra, 705–706.
26
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
27
_______________
18 Supra.
19 Beriña vs. Philippine Maritime Institute, supra.
20 G.R. No. 76353, supra, 14.
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
21 Supra, 16.
22 CONST., supra, Art. III, Sec. 4.
23 No. L-62270, May 21,1984,129 SCRA 359.
28
It is rather expected that more or less disorder will mark the public assembly
of the people to protest against grievances whether real or imaginary,
because on such occasions feeling is always wrought to a high pitch of
excitement, and the greater the grievance and the more intense the feeling,
the less perfect, as a rule, will be the disciplinary control of the leaders over
their irresponsible followers. But if the prosecution be permitted to seize
upon every instance of such disorderly conduct by individual members of a
crowd as an excuse to characterize the assembly as seditious and tumultuous
rising against the authorities, then the right to assemble and to petition for
redress of grievances would become a delusion and a snare and the attempt
to exercise it on the most righteous occasion and in the most peaceable
manner would expose all those who took part therein to the severest and
most unmerited punishment, if the purposes which they sought to attain did
not happen to be pleasing to the prosecuting authorities. If instances of
disorderly conduct occur on such occasions, the guilty individuals should be
sought out and punished therefor, but the utmost discretion must be
exercised in drawing the line between disorderly and seditious conduct 26
and
between an essentially peaceable assembly and a tumultuous uprising.
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
24 Supra, 369.
25 7 Phil. 422 (1907).
26 Supra, 426; see also Reyes v. Bagatsing, No. L-65366, November 9, 1983, 125
SCRA 553.
29
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
30
_______________
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
(No. L-28971, January 28, 1983, 120 SCRA 370), we likewise upheld dismissal for
academic delinquency.
31
dirty linen.
We come to the charges of contempt of which the petitioners urge
that we find the respondents guilty. The majority would absolve the
respondents on the ground that the intervenorsfaculty members were
in fact given teaching loads pending this petition. What the majority
is silent about, however, is the fact that in the same resolution of
November 12,1986, we34 directed the respondents “to re-enroll the
petitioners” (students). The petitioners-students shortly filed an
urgent motion to cite for contempt directed against the respondent
College arising
35
from its discharge of three petitioners from the
students roll. 36Subsequently, the petitioners filed yet another motion
“to re-enroll." It is not controverted that despite our reinstatement
directive, the respondent failed and refused to comply therewith as
far as the students are concerned. For such an act of defiance, it is
my opinion that they are liable for contempt.
I would then have disposed of the case as follows:
Petition dismissed.
——oOo——
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/25
2/18/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 161
________________
32
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168ff0d797b35af8f0d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/25