ADMU vs. Capulong

Ateneo de Manila University vs. Hon.
Judge Ignacio Capulong

[222 SCRA 644; GR. 99327; 27 May 1993]
Romeo, J.

Facts:
On February 8, 9 and 10, 1991, the Aquila Legis, a fraternity organized in the Ateneo Law School, held its
initiation rites for students interested in joining its ranks. As a result in such initiation rites, Leonardo
Lennie H. Villa, a first year student of said university, died of serious physical injuries at the Chinese
General Hospital on February 10, 1991. Acting upon the incident, petitioner Dean Cynthia del Castillio
created a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee which was tasked to investigate
and submit a report within three days on the circumstances surrounding the death of Villa. The said
notice also required the respondent students to submit written statements within two days from
receipt. Although the said students received a copy of the notice, they failed to file a reply which
prompted petitioner school to hold them in preventive suspension. After receiving the written
statements and hearing the testimonies of several witnesses, the Joint Administration-Faculty-Student
Investigating Committee found a prima facie case against respondent students for violating Rule 3 of the
Law School Catalogue entitled Discipline which prohibits participation in any hazing activities.
However, in view of the lack of unanimity among the members of the Board on the penalty of dismissal,
the Boad left the imposition of the penalty to the University Administration. Accordingly, Fr. Bernas
imposed the penalty of dismissal on all respondent students. Respondent students then filed for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) with the Regional Trial Court of Makati citing their current status as
enrolled students of the university. The TRO was granted along with another TRO enjoining Petitioner
University from dismissing the respondent students Albas and Mendoza. This was requested to be
stricken out by the respondents and argued that the creation of the Special Board was totally unrelated
to the original petition which alleged lack of due process. This was granted and reinstatement of the
students was ordered.

Issue:
Whether or not there was a denial of due process against the respondent students

Held:
No. There was no denial of due process, more particularly procedural due process. The Deal of the
Ateneo Law School notified and required respondent students to submit their written statements of the
incident. Instead of filing a reply, respondent students requested through their counsel, copies of the
charges. The nature and cause of the accusation were adequately spelled out in petitioners notices. The
elements of notice and hearing were present in the case at bar. Although the respondent students argue
that petitioners were not in a position to fine the instant petition under Rule 65 considering that they
failed to file a motion for reconsideration first before the trial court, effectively bypassing the latter and
the Court of Appeals, it is of accepted legal doctrine that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of
remedies is when the case involves a question of law, as in the case at bar where the issue is whether or
not the respondent students have been afforded procedural due process before being dismissed from
the university.
Moreover, minimum standards are set in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic
institutions as observed in the case at bench. Such standards do not follow the stricter rules observed in
courts of law. Thus, such requirements may suffice the proper administrative proceedings:
(1) The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against
them;
(2) That they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of cousin,
if desired;
(3) They shall be informed of the evidence against them;
(4) They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
(5) The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designation by
the school authorities to head and decide the case.

ADMU vs. Capulong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADMU vs. Capulong

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ADMU vs. Capulong

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ateneo de Manila University vs. Hon.

Judge Ignacio Capulong

You might also like