Villar Vs TIP

VENECIOVILLAR, INOCENCIO F.
RECITIS, NOVERTOBARRETO,
RUFINO G. SALCON, JR., EDGARDO DE LEON, JR.,
REGLOBENLAXAMANA, and ROMEO GUILATCO, JR., Petitioners,
vs. TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES (TIP),
DEMETRIO A. QUIRINO, JR., in his capacity as Chairman of the
Board of TIP, TERESITA U. QUIRINO, in her capacity as President of
TIP, and OSCAR M. SOLIVEN, in his capacity as Vice-President/Dean
for Students and Alumni Affairs of TIP, Respondents.
G.R. No. L-69198 April 17, 1985
FERNANDO, C.J.:
The crucial question in this petition, inappropriately entitled
"extraordinary legal and equitable remedies with prayer for preliminary
mandatory injunction," which this Court considered as a special civil
action for certiorari and prohibition, is whether or not the exercise of the
freedom of assembly on the part of certain students of respondent
Technological Institute of the Philippines could be a basis for their being
barred from enrollment. The answer is supplied by our decision
in Malabanan v. Ramento, 1 where it was held that respect for the
constitutional rights of peaceable assembly and free speech calls for a
negative answer. If that were an then, the petitioners 2 are entitled to the
remedy prayed for. There is, however, this other circumstance to be
taken into consideration. In the opposition to the petition for preliminary
mandatory injunction, reference was made to the academic records of
petitioners. Two of the petitioners, Rufino G. Salcon, Jr., 3 and Romeo L.
Guilatco, Jr., 4 had only one failing grade each, with the first having
failed in only one subject in either semester of 1984-1985 schoolyear and
the second having failed in only one subject, having passed in eight other
subjects in the 1984-1985 schoolyear. Petitioner VenecioVillar failed in
two subjects but passed in four subjects in the first semester of the
academic year, 1983-1984. 5 Petitioner Inocencio F. Recitis 6 passed all
his subjects in the first semester of 19831984 schoolyear and had one
failing grade during its second semester. He had two failing grades
during the first semester of 1984-1985 schoolyear. Petitioner
NovertoBarreto, 7 had five failing grades in the first semester of
schoolyear 1983-1984, six failing grades in the second semester of the
same schoolyear, and six failing grades in the first semester of 19841985 schoolyear. Petitioner Edgardo de Leon, Jr., 8 had three failing
grades, one passing grade and one subject dropped in the first semester
of schoolyear 1984-1985. Petitioner ReglobenLaxamana 9 had five failing
grades with no passing grade in the first semester of 1984-1985
schoolyear. Petitioners Barreto, de Leon, Jr. and Laxamana could be
denied enrollment in view of such failing grades. Respondent educational
institution is under no obligation to admit them this coming academic
year. The constitutional provision on academic freedom enjoyed by
institutions of higher learning justifies such refusal. 10 chanrobles virtual
law library
Petitioners VenecioVillar, Rufino G. Salcon, Jr., Romeo L. Guilatco, Jr.
and Inocencio F. Recites are entitled to the writs of certiorari and
prohibition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
1. In the aforementioned Malabanan v. Ramento decision, this Court

held: "As is quite clear from the opinion in Reyes v. Bagatsing, the
invocation of the right to freedom of peaceable assembly carries with it
the implication that the right to free speech has likewise been
disregarded. Both are embraced in the concept of freedom of expression,
which is Identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully, any
matter of public interest without censorship or punishment and which 'is
not to be limited, much less denied, except on a showing ... of a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil that the state has a right to
prevent." 11An equally relevant excerpt from the opinion therein follows:
"Petitioners invoke their rights to peaceable assembly and free speech,
they are entitled to do so. They enjoy like the rest of the citizens the
freedom to express their views and communicate their thoughts to those
disposed to listen in gatherings such as was held in this case. They do
not, to borrow from the opinion of Justice Fortas in Tinker v. Des Moines
Community School District, 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of
speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'"12 Petitioners, therefore,
have a valid cause for complaint if the exercise of the constitutional
rights to free speech and peaceable assembly was visited by their
expulsion
from
respondent
College.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
2. What cannot be stressed too sufficiently is that among the most
important social, economic, and cultural rights is the right to education
not only in the elementary and high school grades but also on the college
level. The constitutional provision as to the State maintaining "a system
of free public elementary education and, in areas where finances permit,
establish and maintain a system of free public education" 13 up to the
high school level does not per se exclude the exercise of that right in
colleges and universities. It is only at the most a reflection of the lack of
sufficient funds for such a duty to be obligatory in the case of students in
the colleges and universities. As far as the right itself is concerned, not
the effectiveness of the exercise of such right because of the lack of
funds, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides:
"Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in
the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be
compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made
generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all
on the basis of merit." 14 chanrobles virtual law library
3. It is quite clear that while the right to college education is included in
the social economic, and cultural rights, it is equally manifest that the
obligation imposed on the State is not categorical, the phrase used being
"generally available" and higher education, while being "equally
accessible to all should be on the basis of merit." To that extent,
therefore, there is justification for excluding three of the aforementioned
petitioners
because
of
their
marked
academic
deficiency.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
4. The academic freedom enjoyed by "institutions of higher learning"
includes the right to set academic standards to determine under what
circumstances failing grades suffice for the expulsion of students. Once it
has done so, however, that standard should be followed meticulously. It
cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students who exercise
their constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. If it
does so, then there is a legitimate grievance by the students thus
prejudiced, their right to the equal protection clause 15 being

disregarded.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
5. While the dispositive portion refers only to petitioners of record, the
doctrine announced in this case should apply to all other students
similarly situated. That way, there should not be any need for a party to
apply
to
this
Court
for
the
necessary
redress.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted to petitioners
VenecioVillar, Inocencio F. Recitis, Rufino G. Salcon, Jr. and Romeo
Guilatco, Jr. to nullify the action taken by respondents in violation of
their constitutional rights. The writ of prohibition is likewise granted to
such petitioners to enjoin respondents from acts of surveillance, blacklisting, suspension and refusal to allow them to enroll in the coming
academic year 1985-1986, if so minded. The petition is dismissed as to
NovertoBarreto, Edgardo de Leon, Jr. and ReglobenLaxamana. No costs.
Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Relova,
Gutierrez,
Jr.,
De
la
Fuente,
Cuevas
and
Alampay,
JJ.,concur.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Plana J., took no part.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library
Concepcion, Jr., and Escolin, JJ., are on leave.
Endnotes:
1 G.R. No. 62270, May 21,1984,129SCRA 359.chanrobles virtual law
library
2 The petitioners are VenecioVillar, Inocencio F. Recitis, NovertoBarreto,
Rufino G. Salcon, Jr., Edgardo de Leon, Jr., ReglobenLaxamana and
Romeo Guilatco, Jr.chanrobles virtual law library
3 Annex 7.chanrobles virtual law library
10 According to Article XIV, Sec. 8(3) of the Constitution: "AR institutions
of higher learning shall enjoy academic freedom."
11 129 SCRA 359, 366. Reyes v. Bagatsing, G.R. No. 65366, November 9,
1983, is reported in 125 SCRA 366.chanrobles virtual law library
12 Ibid, 367-368. The Tinker decision is reported in 393 US 503

(1969).chanrobles virtual law library
13 Article XV, Section 6, par. (5) of the Constitution.chanrobles virtual
law library
14 Article 26, par. (1), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.chanrobles
virtual law library
15 According to Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution: "No person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor
shad any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
CASE DIGEST
VILLAR v TIP
135 SCRA 706
FACTS:
Petitioners invoke their right to freedom of expression
against the respondents, in their refusal to admit the said
petitioners at the Technological Institute of the Philippines.
However, reference was made to some of the petitioners' school
records.
Petitioners Rufino Salcon Jr., Romeo Guilatco, Venecio
Villar, Inocencio Recitis had failed in one or two of their subjects
in 1983-1985. However, petitioner Noverto Baretto had five failing
grades in the first semester in the first school year, six failing
grades in the second semester of 1984-1985. Petitioner Edgardo de
Leon Jr. had three failing grades, one passing grade and one subject
dropped in the first semester of school year 1984-1985. Petitioner
Regloben Laxamana had five failing grade with no passing grade in the
first semester of 1984-1985 school year. Petitioners Barreto, de Leon
Jr. and Laxamana could be denied enrollment in view of such failing
grades.
SPECIAL CIVIC ACTION for certiorari and prohibition to review
the decision of the TIP Board.
ISSUE/S:
Whether or not the exercise of the freedom of assembly on the
part of certain students of the respondent Technological Institute of
the Philippines could be a basis for their being barred from
enrollment.
HELD:
NO, as is quite clear from the opinion in Reyes v. Bagatsing, the
invocation of the right to freedom of peaceable assembly carries with
it the implication that the right to free speech has likewise been
disregarded. Both are embraced in the concept of freedom of
expression, which is identified with the liberty to discuss publicly
and truthfully, any matter of public interest without censorship or
punishment and which `is not limited, much less denied, except on a
showing * * * of clear and present danger of substantive evil that
the state has the right to prevent.'
They do not, to borrow from the opinion of Justice Fortas in Tinker
v. Des Moines Community School District, `shed their constitutional
rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.'
WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted to petitioners Venecio
Villar, Inocencio F. Recitis, Rufino G. Salcon, Jr. and Romeo
Guilatco, Jr. to nullify the action taken by respondents in violation
of their constitutional rights. The writ of prohibition is likewise
granted to such petitioners to enjoin respondents from the acts of
surveillance, black listing, suspension and refusal to allow them to
enroll in the coming academic year 1985-1986, if so minded. The
petition is dismissed as to Noverto Barreto, Edgrado de Leon Jr. and
Regloben Laxamana. No costs.

Villar Vs TIP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Villar Vs TIP

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

Villar Vs TIP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VENECIOVILLAR, INOCENCIO F.

1. In the aforementioned Malabanan v. Ramento decision, this Court

prejudiced, their right to the equal protection clause 15 being

12 Ibid, 367-368. The Tinker decision is reported in 393 US 503

You might also like