DLSU Vs CA

DLSU vs CA Facts: James Yap heard two men badmouthing Domino Lux while eating and ignored them
but later on, after informing his two other brods went and the three of them confronted the two men along with four others.A meeting between the two heads of the fraternity and an apology to Tau Gamma Phi was demanded. No apology was made. Later on, 5 members of TGP went to the Domino Lux spot and looked for one who fit the description of James Yap who was not present at the time. Private respondents, members of Tau Gamma Phi studying at DLSU assaulted James Yap, a member of Domino Lux. School authorities were informed and the head of Domino Lux Pascual told everyone not to do anything. Later on, Pascual, along with two others were passing by the same place where Yap heard the two men badmouthing Domino Lux were assaulted by private respondents although they said they did not want any trouble. Pascual was left behind and was mauled by several men including some of the private respondents. After the assault, Pascual and his two companions (Cano and Perez) went to a friend's house and waited two hours before returning to the campus to have their injuries treated as there were three cars roaming the vicinity. The next day, Yap filed a complaint with DLSU Discipline Board charging the respondents with direct assault. As it appeared that students from both DLSU and CSB were involved in the mauling incidents, a joint Discipline Board was formed to investigate the incidents and respondents were given notices to present their answers. They were also allowed the aid of their counsel if they wished and to present a list of witnesses as well as sworn statements to their proposed testimony. Furthermore, for their strict compliance, non-appearance or failure to submit a list of witnesses and their sworn statements of proposed testimony will be considered a waiver on their part to present evidence and as admission of the principal act complained of. Private respondent Bungubung presented his alibi that he was picked up by Mr. Carillo who was his father's driver since his father borrowed his car. Mr. Carillo attempted to corroborate the alibi. Private respondent Valdez presented an alibi that he was at McDonald's with his girlfriend Jorgette Aquino and Sharon Sia who both attempted to corroborate his alibi. Private respondent Reverente present his alibi of being at home where he was assigned as paymaster to the construction workers who were doing some work at his parents' apartment. He had classes in the evening but the construction workers would wait for him sometimes until 9pm after his classes.He submitted an unsigned affidavit attesting to the fact that he paid the workers at the date and time in question. Lastly, private respondent Aguilar solemnly swore that he was in Camp Crame for a meeting. DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline Board found Bungubung, Valdez, Reverente and Aguilar guilty and were punished with expulsion. Papio (no manifestation) was acquitted. The 4 moved for reconsideration separately before the Senior VP for Internal Operations of DLSU which were denied summarily in a Letter-Resolution. Aguilar filed before RTC a petition for certiorari and TRO and writ of preliminary injunction. The next day RTC issued a TRO directing DLSU to desist from implementing the DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline Board's Resolution and the Letter-Resolution and to immediately desist from barring the enrollment of Aguilar for second semester. Subsequently, Aguilar filed an ex parte motion toamend his petition to correct an allegation of his original petition that the RTC's judge made adjustments for in the TRO to conform with Aguilar's correction. CHED then directed DLSU to furnish them with the resolution of the joint board. Private respondents Bungubung, Reverente and Valdes filed petitions-in-intervention that RTC granted in favor of the 3, compelling DLSU to admit them as students. Private petitioner Sales in behalf of the rest of the petitioners except Yap filed a motion to dismiss the petitions-in-intervention that was denied along with its supplement. A writ of preliminary injunction was then
issued in favor of private respondents. Despite the order, Aguilar was not allowed to enroll and filed to cite petitioners in contempt of court. DLSU filed for certiorari before CA with a prayer for TRO and writ of preliminary injunction that was granted. CHED issued its assailed resolution disapproving of the private respondents' expulsion and the reinstatement of Aguilar with the lowering of the penalties of Bungubung, Valdez, Lee and Reverente from expulsion to exclusion. Despite the resolution of CHED, Aguilar was still not allowed to enroll and his letters of demand through counsel were to no avail. CHED wrote to petitioner Quebengco requesting that Aguilar be allowed to enroll but was also refused. CHED promulgated an Order to allow Aguilar to provisinarily enroll pending the Commission's Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration that again went unheeded. CA then granted the dismissal of the petition in favor of Aguilar's motion and denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. Petitioners requested the transfer of the case records from CHED to DECS as DECS has the jurisdiction over expulsion cases. Aguilar filed an urgent motion to reiterate writ of preliminary injunction in RTC and petitioners' motion to dismissed was denied that was served by the court's sheriff. Aguilar was allowed to conditionally enroll in DLSU subject to the continued effectivity of the writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioner filed this petition and a TRO was issued enjoining RTC from implementing the writ of preliminary injunction effective immediately until further notice. After 8 years, Aguilar filed his manifestation stating that he has long completed his course in DLSU but was not issued a certificate of completion/graduation. Issues: 1) Whether or not private respondents were accorded due process of law. 2) Whether or not DLSU can invoke its rights to academic freedom. Ruling: It cannot be said that private respondents were denied of due process as they were duly informed in writing of the charges against them; they were given the opportunity to answer and in fact submitted their answers; they were informed of the evidence presented against them; they were given the right to adduce evidence on their behalf; and the evidence presented by both parties were considered by the Joint Discipline Board before rendeing its Resolution. In Guzman v National University, the proceeding in student disciplinary cases may be summary and cross examination is not an essential part. Academic freedom encompasses the independence of an academic institution to determine for itself (1) who may teach, (2) what may be taught, (3) how it shall teach, and (4) who may be admitted to study.Petitioner DLSU,can very well exercise its academic freedom, which includes its free choice of students for admission to its school.

DLSU Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DLSU Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

DLSU Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DLSU vs CA Facts: James Yap heard two men badmouthing Domino Lux while eating and ignored them

You might also like