Case No.

28
ARIEL NON, REX MAGANA, ALVIN AGURA, NORMANDY OCCIANO, JORGE DAYAON,
LOURDES BANARES, BARTOLOME IBASCO, EMMANUEL BARBA, SONNY MORENO,
GIOVANI PALMA, JOSELITO VILLALON, LUIS SANTOS, and DANIEL TORRES, petitioners, vs.
HON. SANCHO DAMES II, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of 5th Regional Trial Court, Br.
38, Daet, Camarines Norte; and MABINI COLLEGES, INC., represented by its president ROMULO
ADEVA and by the chairman of the Board of Trustees, JUSTO LUKBAN, respondents.
G.R. No. 89317 | 1990-05-20

Facts:

Petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini Colleges, Inc. in Daet, Camarines Norte,
were not allowed to re-enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or
participating in student mass actions against the school in the preceding semester. The subject of
the protests is not, however, made clear in the pleadings.

Petitioners filed a petition in the court seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to the
school, but the trial court dismissed the petition. They now petition the court to reverse its ruling in
Alcuaz vs. PSBA1, which was also applied in the case. The court said that petitioners waived their
privilege to be admitted for re-enrollment with respondent college when they adopted, signed, and
used its enrollment form for the first semester of school year 1988-89, which states that: The
Mabini College reserves the right to deny admission of students whose scholarship and
attendance are unsatisfactory and to require withdrawal of students whose conduct discredits the
institution and/or whose activities unduly disrupts or interfere with the efficient operation of the
college. Students, therefore, are required to behave in accord with the Mabini College code of
conduct and discipline.

Procedural History:
Trial Court:
 Petitioners filed a petition in the court a quo seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to
the school, but the trial court dismissed the petition dismissed the petition in an order dated
August 8, 1988.
 A motion for reconsideration was filed, but this was denied by the trial court on February 24,
1989.

SC:
 Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction.
 On April 10, 1989 to refer the case to the Court of Appeals for proper determination and
disposition.

CA:
  Ordered respondents to comment on the petition and set the application for issuance of a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for hearing.
 Resolved on May 22, 1989 to certify the case back to the Supreme Court considering that
only pure questions of law were raised.
SC:
 The case was assigned to the Third Division of the Court, which then transferred it to the
Court en banc on August 21, 1989 on August 21, 1989 considering that the issues raised
are jurisdictional.
 On September 14, 1989, the Court en banc accepted the case and required respondents to
comment.
 Respondents filed their comment on November 13, 1989. Petitioners were required to reply.
As reply, they filed a pleading entitled "Counter-Comment," to which respondents filed a
rejoinder entitled "Reply to Counter-Comment To this petitioners filed a "Rejoinder to Reply."
 The issues having been joined, the case was deemed submitted.

Issue:
Whether or Not the students’ right to freedom of speech and assembly infringed.

Held:

Yes. The protection to the cognate rights of speech and assembly guaranteed by the
Constitution is similarly available to students is well-settled in our jurisdiction. However there are
limitations. The permissible limitation on Student Exercise of Constitutional Rights within the
school presupposes that conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason whether
it stems from time, place, or type of behavior should not materially disrupt classwork or must not
involve substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.

Note:
Right of a school to refuse re-enrollment to students

It is beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one
semester. It is provided in Paragraph 137 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, that when a
college student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire semester.
Likewise, it is provided in the Manual, that the "written contracts" required for college teachers are
for "one semester." It is thus evident that after the close of the first semester, the [school] no longer
has any existing contract either with the students or with the teachers.

The right of the school to refuse re-enrollment of students for academic delinquency and violation
of disciplinary regulations has always been recognized by this Court . Thus, the Court has ruled
that the school's refusal is sanctioned by law. Sec. 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private
Schools considers academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations as valid grounds
for refusing re-enrollment of students. The opposite view would do violence to the academic
freedom enjoyed by the school and enshrined under the Constitution. [Alcuaz vs PSBA, G.R. No.
76353, May 2, 1988 ;see also Tangonan vs. Paño, G.R. No. L-45157, June 27, 1985 and
University of San Agustin vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100588, March 7, 1994]

In Non vs. Dames II (G.R. No. 89317, May 20, 1990) we have already abandoned our earlier ruling
in Alcuaz vs. PSBA (that enrollment of a student is a semester-to-semester contract, and that the
school may not be compelled to renew the contract) by recognizing instead the right of a student
to be enrolled for the entire period in order to complete his course. We have also stressed that the
contract between the school and the student, imbued, as it is, with public interest, is not an ordinary
contract. [ see Isabelo vs Perpetual Help Colege of Rizal, G.R. No. 103142, November 8, 1993;
see also Philippine School of Business Administration vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84698,
February 4, 1992]

Source:
https://web.mylegalwhiz.com/search/glossary?page=glossary&keyword=Academic%20freedom

Nachura:

In Non v. Dames, 185 SCRA 523, the Supreme Court abandoned its earlier ruling in Alcuaz v.
PSBA, 165 SCRA 7, (that enrolment of a student is a semester-to-semester contract and the
school may not be compelled to renew the contract), upholding the primacy of freedom of
expression, because the students do not shed their constitutionally protected rights at the school
gate.

Excerpts from the case:

1. The Student Does Not Shed His Constitutionally Protected Rights at the Schoolgate.
Central to the democratic tradition which we cherish is the recognition and protection of the rights
of free speech and assembly. Thus, our Constitution provides:
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances. [Art. III.]

In Guzman, the imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due

process. Thus:
. . . There are withal minimum standards which must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural
due process; and these are, that (1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and
cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer the charges against
them, with the assistance of counsel, 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 designated by the school
authorities to hear and decide the case. [At pp. 706-707].
***SC: It does not appear that the petitioners were afforded due process, in the manner expressed
in Guzman, before they were refused re-enrollment.

Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, the "Education Act of 1982." Section 9 of this act provides:
Sec. 9. Rights of Students in School. — In addition to other rights, and subject to the limitations
prescribed by law and regulations, students and pupils in all schools shall enjoy the following
rights:
xxx xxx xxx
2. The right to freely choose their field of study subject to existing curricula and to continue their
course therein up to graduation, except in cases of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary
regulations.
***SC: Among the thirteen (13) petitioners eight (8) have incurred failing grades and five (5)
students did not incur failing marks. (5) students did not incur failing marks were refused re-
enrollment without just cause and, hence, should be allowed to re-enroll. ,
…the decision to refuse them re-enrollment because of failing grades was a mere
afterthought…excluding students because of failing grades when the cause for the action taken
against them undeniably related to possible breaches of discipline not only is a denial of due
process but also constitutes a violation of the basic tenets of fair play.
…of the eight (8) students with failing grades, some have only one or two failures, their failures
cannot be considered marked academic deficiency within the context of the Court's decision in
Villar.
in Villar that the right of an institution of higher learning to set academic standards
cannot be utilized to discriminate against students who exercise their constitutional rights to
speech and assembly, for otherwise there win be a violation of their right to equal protection

***SC: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The orders of respondent judge dated August 8,
1988 and February 24, 1989 are hereby ANNULLED. Respondent Mabini College is ORDERED
to readmit and to allow the re- enrollment of petitioners, if they are still so minded, without prejudice
to its taking the appropriate action as to petitioners Ariel Non, Joselito Villalon, George (Jorge)
Dayaon and Daniel Torres, if it is shown by their records (Form 137) that they have failed to satisfy
the school's prescribed academic standards.

FYI :
Paragraph 137, subsumed under Section VII on Tuition and Other Fees, which in its totality
provides:
137. When a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire school
year for elementary and secondary courses, and for the entire semester for collegiate courses. A
student who transfers or otherwise withdraws, in writing, within two weeks after the beginning of
classes and who has already paid the pertinent tuition and other school fees in full or for any length
of time longer than one month may be charged ten per cent of the total amount due for the term if
he withdraws within the first week of classes, or twenty per cent if within the second week of
classes, regardless of whether or not he has actually attended classes. The student may be
charged all the school fees in full if he withdraws anytime after the second week of classes.
However, if the transfer or withdrawal is due to a justifiable reason, the student shall be charged
the pertinent fees only up to and including the last month of attendance.