The petitioner, Epicharis Garcia, was barred from re-admission to Loyola School of Theology. She filed a writ of mandamus to compel her re-admission. The court ruled against the petitioner for two reasons: 1) As a woman studying in a seminary for men training for the priesthood, she only had a privilege to study, not a right to admission. 2) The school has discretion on admitting qualified applicants under its academic freedom outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
The petitioner, Epicharis Garcia, was barred from re-admission to Loyola School of Theology. She filed a writ of mandamus to compel her re-admission. The court ruled against the petitioner for two reasons: 1) As a woman studying in a seminary for men training for the priesthood, she only had a privilege to study, not a right to admission. 2) The school has discretion on admitting qualified applicants under its academic freedom outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Original Description:
sakto na
Original Title
[DIGEST][CONSTI]Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee
The petitioner, Epicharis Garcia, was barred from re-admission to Loyola School of Theology. She filed a writ of mandamus to compel her re-admission. The court ruled against the petitioner for two reasons: 1) As a woman studying in a seminary for men training for the priesthood, she only had a privilege to study, not a right to admission. 2) The school has discretion on admitting qualified applicants under its academic freedom outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
The petitioner, Epicharis Garcia, was barred from re-admission to Loyola School of Theology. She filed a writ of mandamus to compel her re-admission. The court ruled against the petitioner for two reasons: 1) As a woman studying in a seminary for men training for the priesthood, she only had a privilege to study, not a right to admission. 2) The school has discretion on admitting qualified applicants under its academic freedom outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
GARCIA
vs.
THE
FACULTY
ADMISSION
COMMITTEE,
LOYOLA
SCHOOL
OF
THEOLOGY
[G.R.
No.
L-40779]
Date:
Nov.
28,
1975
Petitioner:
Epicharis
T.
Garcia
Respondent/s:
The
Faculty
Admission
Committee,
Loyola
School
of
Theology
(Fr.
Antonio
B.
Lambino)
FACTS:
1. Petitioner
has
been
barred
from
being
allowed
re-admission
into
the
respondent
school,
which
is
a
seminary
for
the
priesthood
in
collaboration
with
the
Ateneo
de
Manila
University.
Petitioner
was
taking
her
studies
leading
to
an
M.A.
in
Theology
at
the
time,
but
was
no
longer
allowed
to
enroll
in
the
Academic
Year
of
1975-1976.
2. Petitioner
contends
that
the
reason
behind
the
respondents
refusal
to
re-admit
her
(as
stated
in
a
letter
from
the
respondent),
which
is
due
to
the
fact
that
her
frequent
questions
and
difficulties
that
were
slowing
down
the
progress
of
the
class,
does
not
constitute
valid
legal
ground
for
expulsion
for
they
neither
present
any
violation
of
any
of
the
schools
regulation,
nor
are
they
indicative
of
gross
misconduct.
She
was
advised
to
enroll
in
the
University
of
Santo
Tomas
Graduate
School
(Ecclesiastical
Faculty),
where
she
will
have
to
take
up
Philosophy
(4-5
years,
compared
to
2
years
in
Ateneo)
before
she
will
be
allowed
to
take
Theology.
She
was,
however,
allowed
to
take
some
courses
for
credit,
free
of
charge,
during
the
summer
sessions
of
the
respondent
school
in
1975,
but
was
not
acknowledged
to
be
enrolled
in
any
degree
program.
3. Petitioner
then
filed
for
a
writ
of
Mandamus
to
compel
the
respondent
to
allow
her
admission.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether
the
petitioner
is
deemed
to
possess
a
right
to
be
respected
by
the
respondent
in
terms
being
denied
re-admission?
2. Whether
the
Faculty
Admission
Committee
had
to
authority
to
bar
the
petitioner
from
continuing
her
studies
in
their
institution?
RULE/S:
ARTICLE
XIV
SEC.
1
The
State
shall
protect
and
promote
the
right
of
all
citizens
to
quality
education
at
all
levels
and
shall
take
appropriate
steps
to
make
such
education
accessible
to
all.
SEC.
5
(2)
Academic
freedom
shall
be
enjoyed
in
all
institutions
of
higher
learning.
ANALYSIS:
1. Due
to
the
fact
that
the
respondent
school
the
petitioner
was
enrolling
to
was
a
seminary
for
priesthood
and
for
men,
the
most
she
could
claim
for
is
a
privilege,
and
not
a
right.
Furthermore,
she
was
admittedly
enrolling
into
a
course
that
was
not
for
the
priesthood.
Besides,
even
if,
for
the
sake
of
argument,
she
was
qualified
to
study
for
the
priesthood,
there
is
still
no
duty
on
the
part
of
the
respondent
to
admit
her
for
the
discretion
to
accept
or
reject
qualified
applicants
still
lies
on
the
respondent
school.
2. Also,
taking
into
consideration
Sec.
5
of
Art.
XIV,
the
aforementioned
discretion
is
backed
by
the
Constitution.
CONCLUSION:
G.R. No. L-13954 August 12, 1959 Genaro Gerona, Et Al., Petitioners-Appellants, vs. The Honorable Secretary of Education, Et Al., Respondents-Appellees