EMMANUEL S. LICUP, NOEL F. TABASA, AND JOEL MARC CAIRO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS (USC), FR. RODERICK SALAZAR, JR., SVD, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT OF USC,…

In April, 1988 the University of San Carlos (USC) announced an
increase in tuition and other school fees by nine percent (9%) effective the first semester of the
school year 1988-1989. According to the
USC, the increase was necessary to enable the school to comply with R.A. No.
6640. Under the said law, schools were
required to give a mandatory salary increase of P11.00 per day to teachers and
non-academic personnel earning below P100.00 daily.

Student leaders Emmanuel S. Licup, Noel F. Tabasa and Joel Marc
Cairo were in the forefront of the students protesting the tuition fee
hike. They made a research in the
Finance Department of the USC and allegedly found out that the USC could increase the salaries of teachers
without necessarily increasing the tuition fees. The Supreme Student Government of the University led by said
three made representations with the USC officials to reconsider their stand but
they refused to roll back the tuition fees. Thus they led a mass protest of students. Demonstrations were held. The protesters blockaded the entrance and exit gates for students in the
university. Posters and wall statements
expressing student demands were displayed.

By reason thereof, Fr. Gregorio Favia, SVD, vice president for
academic affairs, issued a memorandum to all Deans and Chairmen of the
different colleges of the USC instructing them not to allow the student leaders
to campaign against the tuition fee increase inside the classrooms. On the other hand, President Fr. Roderick
Salazar, Jr., SVD of the USC initiated the appropriate administrative actions
against several students including Licup, Tabasa and Cairo for alleged
violation of the rules and regulations of the university and the Bureau of Public Schools.

A Formal Inquiry Committee was created by Pres. Salazar composed
of former Associate Justice Mariano Zosa of the Court of Appeals, Dean Expedito
Bugarin of the College of Law, Dr. Aurelio Tiro, former DECS regional director,
and Engineer Roger Bajarias of the College of Engineering – all members of the
faculty of the University.

The respondents-students questioned the impartiality of the said
Committee and its authority to charge them for violation of the university
handbook which was allegedly issued without consultation with the student
government. Nevertheless, they
submitted themselves to the investigation after which, on November 15, 1988,
the Committee submitted a report to the Disciplinary Board, through its
chairman, Fr. Eduardo R. Rocha, SVD, finding Licup, Tabasa and Cairo guilty of
the offense as charged in the administrative complaint.^[1]

On November 16, 1988, Fr. Rocha wrote said three that the Board
unanimously voted to impose on them the penalty of non-readmission in the USC
effective the second semester of the academic year 1988-89 and that such
decision is final.^[2]

On November 21, 1988, they filed an appeal and/or petition for
review with the Office of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS), Region VII, Cebu City, pursuant to Bureau of Private Schools Memorandum
No. 4, Series of 1970.^[3] On
the same day, the Regional Director wrote them that said office (DECS) had no
authority over the case and suggested instead that they file a request for
reconsideration with the USC President.^[4]

In the meanwhile said students were prevented from entering any
of the campuses of the University by armed security guards due to the said
decision.

Believing that the filing of a Motion for reconsideration with
the USC President would serve no useful purpose as he had already pre-judged
the case, Licup, Tabasa and Cairo filed this petition for certiorari
with injunction alleging that irreparable injury
have been inflicted on them as students; that what they held was a peaceful
demonstration; that while standing at the Talamban campus petitioners and some
student leaders were dragged by janitors and security guards causing injuries
to petitioners; that their posters were removed; that they were not suffering
from academic deficiencies; that the investigation conducted for alleged
violation of the disciplinary regulations was done without fairness or fair
play and thereby violated the ideals of due process; that the penalty that was
imposed on them was harsh and brutal and not commensurate with the offense
allegedly committed; that the USC had violated their property rights without
due process of law. They also disputed
the statement of Fr. Rocha that
the decision was unanimous when the coordinator of the student disciplinary committee Mr. Orlando
Tabasa and the student representative coming from the Supreme Student
Government were not allowed to
participate in the deliberation as members of the Disciplinary Board; that
petitioners exhausted all administrative remedies and attempted to register and
enroll with the USC for the second semester but they were barred on the ground
that their expulsion was final; and that the penalty of non-readmission is
tantamount to expulsion because at said point and time, no other school or
university would enroll the petitioners. While the petitioners admit that they were barricading and blockading
the school premises during their protest action they state that there was no
actual violence that occurred. Finally,
petitioners invoke their right to continue their course and to due process.

In their comment on the petition, the respondents admitted having
increased the tuition fees by 9% but asserted that the text and guidelines on
the tuition fee increases allowed schools to increase the same up to 15% without consultation with students
and parents. Such increase was
necessary, otherwise the USC could not have increased the salaries of its
employees. Respondents aver that the student demonstrations
were far from peaceful but was an illegal strike where the students utilized
barricades and blockades to prevent a great majority of the non-striking students from attending their classes; that
physical force, threat, intimidation, and destruction
were employed to disrupt the classes and prevent the non-striking
students from entering the
campuses; that far from denying the rights of the students to freedom of speech
and assembly, they were allowed the use of the stadium and audio visual rooms
for their meetings but they preferred to mass at the entrances and exits of the
USC to prevent non-striking students from attending their classes; that
speeches were not allowed in classrooms as
it would disturb ongoing classes and would be violative of the academic
freedom likewise enjoyed by other students; that the placing of posters
indiscriminately on university walls was prohibited as the same should have the
stamp of approval of the Student Affairs Office; they deny that the University
security guards employed physical force on student demonstrators; and they
allege that some students may have been injured when they threw themselves on
the ground to prevent the school bus from entering the University campus. Respondents also aver that the administrative
charges against the students were initiated to determine the truth and to
afford the petitioners the opportunity to give their side; that a full-dress
trial was conducted where petitioners were represented by counsel; that the
members of the Formal Inquiry Committee were chosen for their unquestionable
competence and impartiality; that the University handbook was given to the
students upon enrollment and they were made to understand that they are subject
to the rules and regulations therein provided; and that, finally, the
investigation was conducted in a fair and impartial manner.

As to the Disciplinary Board they pointed out that there is a
student representative in the person of the President of the Graduate School
Organization; that the Supreme Student Government refused to send their
representative to the Board as they allegedly did not want to participate
“in a farce”; and that Mr. Orlando Tabasa, Coordinator of the Student
Discipline, was not invited to sit in the Board as petitioner Tabasa who was
one of the respondents is his son.

Respondents aver that the penalty of non-readmission in the
second semester of the school year 1988-89 was justified and in accordance with
the rules and regulations of the University handbook; that they were most
lenient in determining the penalty that
should be imposed under the circumstances; that the act of petitioners of
barricading and blocking the university entrances and exits should have merited
the outright expulsion of petitioners but the Board decided on a less severe
penalty. Respondents deny that the
substantial and constitutional rights of the petitioners have been
violated. Besides, respondents point
out that petitioners Cairo and Licup had academic deficiencies for the school
year 1988-89 as follows:

They state that said academic
deficiencies are sufficient in themselves to justify the non-readmission of
petitioners.

After careful evaluation of the petition, the Court finds the
same to be devoid of any merit. There
can be no question that petitioners were among the leaders of the student demonstrations
arising from the increase of tuition fee of the USC aforestated. In the course thereof, they blockaded and
barricaded the entrances and exits of the University and prevented the students
from attending their classes. The
demonstrations were far from peaceful. It was, therefore, within the right of the USC to initiate the
appropriate administrative investigation of the petitioners for violation of
the rules and regulations of USC.

The investigation
was conducted by a committee wherein petitioners were present and duly
represented by counsel and wherein they were able to adduce their
evidence. After the investigation, the
committee submitted to the Disciplinary
Board its report recommending the non-readmission of the petitioners in the
University. This recommendation was
unanimously indorsed by the Disciplinary Board and was implemented by the
University authorities.

The Court finds no
cogent basis for the protestations of petitioners that they were deprive due
process of law and that the investigation conducted was far from impartial and
fair. On the contrary, what appears in
the record is that the charges against petitioners were adequately established
in an appropriate investigation. The
imputation of bias and partiality is not supported by the record. The sanction that was imposed on the
petitioners for their infraction appear to be the most lenient under the
University handbook. Instead of
expulsion the penalty imposed was non-readmission.

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 concommitant right to see to it that this freedom is
not jeopardized.

True, an
institution of learning has a contractual obligation to afford its students a
fair opportunity to complete the course they seek to pursue. However, when a student commits a serious
breach of discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standard, he
forfeits his contractual right; and the court should not review the discretion
of university authorities.^[6]

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Griño-Aquino, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Annex C to Petition.

^[2]
Annexes F, G, and H to Petition.

^[3]
Annex I to Petition.

^[4]
Annex J to Petition.

^[5]
Page 7, Comment of respondents.

^[6]
Magtibay vs. Garcia, 120 SCRA 370 (1983); See also Ateneo de Manila
University vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 100 (1986).