University of The Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals
*
G.R. No. 134625. August 31, 1999.
UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF

REGENTS, CHANCELLOR ROGER POSADAS, DR.
EMERLINDA ROMAN, DEAN CONSUELO PAZ, DR.
ISAGANI MEDINA, DR. MARIA SERENA DIOKNO, DR.
OLIVIA CAOILI, DR. FRANCISCO NEMENZO II, DEAN
PACIFICO AGABIN, CARMELITA GUNO and MARICHU
LAMBINO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
and AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE,
respondents.
Academic Freedom; Schools and Universities; Actions; Words

and Phrases; „Mandamus,‰ Defined; The writ of mandamus is not
available to restrain an institution of higher learning from the
exercise of its academic freedom.·Mandamus is a writ commanding
a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the act required to be
done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there
being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law. In University of the Philippines Board of Regents v.
Ligot-Telan, this Court ruled that the writ was not available to
restrain U.P. from the exercise of its academic freedom.
Same; Same; Due Process; A party who has availed of the
opportunity to present his position cannot tenably claim to have been
denied due process.·As the foregoing narration of facts in this case
shows, however, various committees had been formed to investigate
the charge that private respondent had committed plagiarism and,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c24be25c3d4c8c9003600fb002c009e/p/APE030/?username=Guest Page 1 of 28
in all the investigations held, she was heard in her defense. Indeed,
if any criticism may be made of the university proceedings before
private respondent was finally stripped of her degree, it is that
there were too many committee and individual investigations
conducted, although all resulted in a finding that private
respondent committed dishonesty in submitting her doctoral
dissertation on the basis of which she was conferred the Ph.D.
degree. Indeed, in administrative
____________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
405
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 405
University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals
proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to

explain oneÊs side of a controversy or a chance to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A party who
has availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot tenably
claim to have been denied due process.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative Law; Due process in an
administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings
similar to those in the courts of justice.·It is not tenable for private
respondent to argue that she was entitled to have an audience
before the Board of Regents. Due process in an administrative
context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in
the courts of justice. It is noteworthy that the U.P. Rules do not
require the attendance of persons whose cases are included as items
on the agenda of the Board of Regents.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Disciplinary cases involving
students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination.
·Nor indeed was private respondent entitled to be furnished a copy
of the report of the Zafaralla committee as part of her right to due
process. In Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong, we held:
Respondent students may not use the argument that since they
were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written
statements which became the basis of petitionersÊ February 14,
1991 order, they were denied procedural due process. Granting that
they were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said to
detract from the observance of due process, for disciplinary cases
involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross
examination. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate
studentsÊ participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with
the attributes of a judicial proceeding . . .
Same; Same; If an institution of higher learning can decide who
can and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on
whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates.
·Art. XIV, §5 (2) of the Constitution provides that „[a]cademic
freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.‰ This
is nothing new. The 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitution
likewise provided for the academic freedom or, more precisely, for
the institutional autonomy of universities and institutions of higher
learning. As pointed out by this Court in Garcia v. Faculty
Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, it is a freedom
granted to
406
„institutions of higher learning‰ which is thus given „a wide sphere

of authority certainly extending to the choice of students.‰ If such
institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot
study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer
the honor and distinction of being its graduates.
Same; Same; Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor
or distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has the right
to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred.
·Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction
was obtained through fraud, a university has the right to revoke or
withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. This
freedom of a university does not terminate upon the „graduation‰ of
a student, as the Court of Appeals held. For it is precisely the
„graduation‰ of such a student that is in question. It is noteworthy

that the investigation of private respondentÊs case began before her
graduation. If she was able to join the graduation ceremonies on
April 24, 1993, it was because of too many investigations conducted
before the Board of Regents finally decided she should not have
been allowed to graduate.
Same; Same; Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted to
institutions of higher learning, for the constitutional grant of
academic freedom „is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or
in a grudging fashion.‰·Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy
granted to institutions of higher learning, for the constitutional
grant of academic freedom, to quote again from Garcia v. Faculty
Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, „is not to be
construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion.‰
Same; Same; University of the Philippines; If the conferment of
a degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is also
empowered, subject to the observance of due process, to withdraw
what it has granted without violating a studentÊs rights; The pursuit
of academic excellence is the universityÊs concern·it should be
empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take measures to protect
itself from serious threats to its integrity.·Under the U.P. Charter,
the Board of Regents is the highest governing body of the
University of the Philippines. It has the power to confer degrees
upon the recommendation of the University Council. It follows that
if the conferment of a degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board
of Regents is also empowered, subject to the observance of due
process, to with-
407
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 407
draw what it has granted without violating a studentÊs rights. An

institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers
that an academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully deserved.
Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a universityÊs
highest academic degree upon an individual who has obtained the
same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic excellence is
the universityÊs concern. It should be empowered, as an act of self-

defense, to take measures to protect itself from serious threats to its
integrity.
Same; Same; Same; Plagiarism; The Board of Regents may
withdraw a graduateÊs doctorate if it has determined, after due
investigation, that she committed intellectual dishonesty in her
dissertation and she failed to refute the charges of plagiarism
against her.·In the case at bar, the Board of Regents determined,
after due investigation conducted by a committee composed of
faculty members from different U.P. units, that private respondent
committed no less than ninety (90) instances of intellectual
dishonesty in her dissertation. The Board of RegentsÊ decision to
withdraw private respondentÊs doctorate was based on documents
on record including her admission that she committed the offense.
On the other hand, private respondent was afforded the opportunity
to be heard and explain her side but failed to refute the charges of
plagiarism against her. Her only claim is that her responses to the
charges against her were not considered by the Board of Regents
before it rendered its decision. However, this claim was not proven.
Accordingly, we must presume regularity in the performance of
official duties in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In investigating charges of
plagiarism against a student who has already graduated, the
University of the Philippines could not be considered to be seeking to
discipline her but seeking to protect its academic integrity by
withdrawing from such graduate an academic degree she obtained
through fraud.·As the above-quoted provision of §5 of the Rules
and Regulations indicates, the jurisdiction of the student
disciplinary tribunal extends only to disciplinary actions. In this
case, U.P. does not seek to discipline private respondent. Indeed, as
the appellate court observed, private respondent is no longer within
„the ambit of disciplinary powers of the U.P.‰ Private respondent
cannot even be punished since, as she claims, the penalty for acts of
dishonesty in administrative disciplinary proceedings is suspension
from the University
408
for at least one year. What U.P., through the Board of Regents,
seeks to do is to protect its academic integrity by withdrawing from
private respondent an academic degree she obtained through fraud.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for petitioners.
Public AttorneyÊs Office for private respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:
For review
1
before the Court is the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42788, dated December 16,
1997, which granted private respondentÊs application for a
writ of mandatory injunction, and its resolution, dated July
13, 1998, denying petitionersÊ motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Private respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret
Celine is a citizen of India and holder of a Philippine
visitorÊs visa. Sometime in April 1988, she enrolled in the
doctoral program in Anthropology of the University of the
Philippines College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
(CSSP) in Diliman, Quezon City.
After completing the units of course work required in
her doctoral program, private respondent went on a two-
year leave of absence to work as Tamil Programme
Producer of the Vatican Radio in the Vatican and as
General Office Assistant at the International Right to Life
Federation in Rome. She returned to the Philippines in
July 1991 to work on her dissertation entitled, „Tamil
Influences in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.‰
_________________
1 Per Associate Justice Artemio G. Tuquero and concurred in by

Associate Justices Jorge S. Imperial and Eubulo G. Verzola.
409
409 VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999

Appeals
On December 22, 1992, Dr. Realidad S. Rolda, chairperson

of the U.P. Department of Anthropology, wrote a letter to
Dr. Maria Serena Diokno, CSSP Associate Dean and
Graduate Program Director, certifying that private
respondent had finished her dissertation and was ready for
her oral defense. Dr. Rolda suggested that the oral defense
be held on January 6, 1993 but, in a letter, dated February
2, 1993, Dr. Serena Diokno rescheduled it on February 5,
1993. Named as members of the dissertation panel were
Drs. E. Arsenio Manuel, Serafin Quiason, Sri Skandarajah,
Noel Teodoro, and Isagani Medina, the last included as the
deanÊs representative.
After going over private respondentÊs dissertation, Dr.
Medina informed CSSP Dean Consuelo Joaquin-Paz that
there was a portion in private respondentÊs dissertation
that was lifted, without proper acknowledgment, from
BalfourÊs Cyclopaedia of India and Eastern and Southern
Asia (1967), volume I, pp. 392-401 (3 v., Edward Balfour
1885 reprint) and from John EdyeÊs article entitled
„Description of the Various Classes of Vessels Constructed
and Employed by the Natives of the Coasts of Coromandel,
Malabar, and the Island of Ceylon for their Coasting
Navigation‰ in the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
2
Britain
and Ireland Journal, volume I, pp. 1-14 (1833).
Nonetheless, private respondent was allowed to defend
her dissertation on February 5, 1993. Four (4) out of the
five (5) panelists gave private respondent a passing mark
for her oral defense by affixing their signatures on the
approval form. These were Drs. Manuel, Quiason,
Skandarajah, and Teodoro. Dr. Quiason added the following
qualification to his signature:
Ms. Arokiaswamy must incorporate the suggestions I made during

3
the successful defense of her Ph.D. thesis.
___________________
2 Stated as 1883 in the Petition for Certiorari.
3 Records, p. 26.
410

Appeals
Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form but added the
following comment:
Pipirmahan ko ang pagsang-ayon/di pagsang-ayon kapag nakita ko

4
na ang mga revisions ng dissertation.
Dr. Teodoro added the following note to his signature:
Kailangang isagawa ang mga mahahalagang pagbabago at ipakita

5
sa panel ang bound copies.
In a letter, dated March 5, 1993 and addressed to her thesis

adviser, Dr. Manuel, private respondent requested a
meeting with the panel members, especially Dr. Medina, to
discuss the amendments suggested by the panel members
during the oral defense. The meeting was held at the deanÊs
office with Dean Paz, private6
respondent, and a majority of
the defense panel present. During the meeting, Dean Paz
remarked that a majority vote of the panel members was
sufficient for a student to pass, notwithstanding the failure
to obtain the consent of the DeanÊs representative.
On March 24, 1993, the CSSP College Faculty Assembly
approved private respondentÊs graduation pending
submission of final copies of her dissertation.
In April 1993, private respondent submitted copies of
her supposedly revised dissertation to Drs. Manuel,
Skandarajah, and Quiason, who expressed their assent to
the dissertation. Petitioners maintain, however, that
private respondent did not incorporate the revisions
suggested by the panel members in the final copies of her
dissertation.
Private respondent left a copy of her dissertation in Dr.
TeodoroÊs office on April 15, 1993 and proceeded to submit
her dissertation to the CSSP without the approvals of Dr.
Medina
_______________
4Ibid.
5Supra, note 3.
6 Dr. Manuel Teodoro was absent during the meeting.
411
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 411

Appeals
and Dr. Teodoro, relying on Dean PazÊs March 5, 1993

statement.
Dr. Teodoro later indicated his disapproval,
7
while Dr.
Medina did not sign the approval form.
Dean Paz then accepted private respondentÊs
dissertation in partial fulfillment of the course
requirements for the doctorate degree in Anthropology.
In a letter to Dean Paz, dated April 17, 1993, private
respondent expressed concern over matters related to her
dissertation. She sought to explain why the signature of Dr.
Medina was not affixed to the revision approval form.
Private respondent said that since she already had the
approval of a majority of the panel members, she no longer
showed her dissertation to Dr. Medina nor tried to obtain
the latterÊs signature on the revision approval form. She
likewise expressed her disappointment over the CSSP
administration and charged Drs. Diokno and Medina with
maliciously working for the disapproval of her dissertation,
and further warned Dean Paz against encouraging
perfidious acts against her.
On April 17, 1993, the University Council met to
approve the list of candidates for graduation for the second
semester of school year 1992-1993. The list, which was
endorsed to the Board of Regents for final approval,
included private respondentÊs name.
On April 21, 1993, Dean Paz sent a letter to Dr. Milagros
Ibe, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, requesting the
exclusion of private respondentÊs name from the list of
candidates for graduation, pending clarification of8 the
problems regarding her dissertation. Her letter reads:
_________________
7 Records, p. 173.
8 Records, p. 39.
412

Appeals
Abril 21, 1993

Dr. Milagros Ibe
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
Quezon Hall, Diliman, Q.C.
Mahal na Dr. Ibe,
Mahigpit ko pong hinihiling na hwag munang isama
ang pangalan ni Ms. Arokiaswam[y] William Margaret
Celine sa listahan ng mga bibigyan ng degri na Ph.D.
(Anthropology) ngayon[g] semester, dahil sa mga
malubhang bintang nya sa ilang myembro ng panel
para sa oral defense ng disertasyon nya at sa mga
akusasyon ng ilan sa mga ito sa kanya.
Naniniwala po kami na dapat mailinaw muna ang
ilang bagay bago makonfer ang degri kay Ms.
Arokiaswam[y]. Kelangan po ito para mapangalagaan
ang istandard ng pinakamataas na degree ng
Unibersidad.
(Sgd.)
CONSUELO JOAQUIN-PAZ, Ph.D.
Dekano
Apparently, however, Dean PazÊs letter did not reach the

Board of Regents on time, because the next day, April 22,
1993, the Board approved the University CouncilÊs
recommendation for the graduation of qualified students,
including private respondent. Two days later, on April 24,
1993, private respondent graduated with the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology.
On the other hand, Dean Paz also wrote a letter to
private respondent, dated April 21, 1993, that she would
not be granted an academic clearance unless she

substantiated the accusations contained in her letter dated
April 17, 1993.
In her letter, dated April 27, 1993, private respondent
claimed that Dr. MedinaÊs unfavorable attitude towards her
dissertation was a reaction to her failure to include him
and Dr. Francisco in the list of panel members; that she
made the revisions proposed by Drs. Medina and Teodoro in
the revised
413
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 413

Appeals
draft of her dissertation; and that Dr. Diokno was guilty of

harassment.
In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, dated May 1, 1993,
Dr. Medina formally charged private respondent with
plagiarism and recommended
9
that the doctorate granted to
her be withdrawn.
On May 13, 1993, Dean Paz formed an ad hoc
committee, composed of faculty members from various
disciplines and chaired by Dr. Eva Duka-Ventura, to
investigate the plagiarism charge against private
respondent. Meanwhile, she recommended to U.P. Diliman
Chancellor, Dr. Emerlinda Roman, that the Ph.D. 10
degree
conferred on private respondent be withdrawn.
In a letter, dated June 7, 1993, Dean Paz 11
informed
private respondent of the charges against her.
On June 15, 1993, the Ventura Committee submitted a
report to Dean Paz, finding at least ninety (90) instances or
portions in private respondentÊs thesis which were lifted
from sources without proper or due acknowledgment.
On July 28, 1993, the CSSP College Assembly
unanimously approved the recommendation to withdraw
private respondentÊs doctorate degree and forwarded its
recommendation to the University Council. The University
Council, in turn, approved and endorsed the same
recommendation to the Board of Regents on August 16,
1993.
On September 6, 1993, the Board of Regents deferred

action on the recommendation 12
to study the legal
implications of its approval.
Meanwhile, in a letter, dated September 23, 1993, U.P.
Diliman Chancellor Emerlinda Roman summoned private
respondent to a meeting on the same day and asked her to
submit her written explanation to the charges against her.
___________________
9 Rollo, pp. 201-202.

10Id., p. 133.
11 Records, p. 346.
12Id., p. 179.
414

University of the Philippines Board of Regents fvs. Court of
Appeals
During the meeting, Chancellor Roman informed private

respondent of the charges and provided her a 13 copy of the
findings of the investigating committee. Private
respondent, on the other hand, submitted her written
explanation in a letter dated September 25, 1993.
Another meeting was held on October 8, 1993 between
Chancellor Roman and private respondent to discuss her
answer to the charges. A third meeting was scheduled on
October 27, 1993 but private respondent did not attend it,
alleging that the Board of Regents had already decided her
case before she could be fully heard.
On October 11, 1993, private respondent wrote to Dr.
Emil Q. Javier, U.P. President, alleging that some members
of the
14
U.P. administration were playing politics in her
case. She sent another letter, dated December 14, 1993, to
Dr. Armand Fabella, Chairman of the Board of Regents,
complaining that she had not been afforded due process
and claiming that U.P. could no longer withdraw her degree
since 15
her dissertation had already been accepted by the
CSSP.
Meanwhile, the U.P. Office of Legal Services justified the
position of the University Council in its report to the Board

of Regents. The Board of Regents, in its February 1, 1994
and March 24, 1994 meetings, further deferred action
thereon.
On July 11, 1994, private respondent sent a letter to the
Board of Regents requesting a re-investigation of her case.
She stressed that under the Rules and Regulations on
Student Conduct and Discipline, it was the student
disciplinary tribunal which had jurisdiction to decide cases
of dishonesty and that the withdrawal of a degree already
conferred was not one of the authorized penalties which the
student disciplinary tribunal could impose.
On July 28, 1994, the Board of Regents decided to
release private respondentÊs transcript of grades without
annotation
__________________
13 Records, p. 49.
14Id., p. 409.
15Id., pp. 403-406.
415
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 415

Appeals
although it showed that private respondent passed her

dissertation with 12 units of credit.
On August 17, 1994, Chancellor Roger Posadas issued
Administrative Order No. 94-94 constituting a special
committee composed of senior faculty members from the
U.P. units outside Diliman to review the University
CouncilÊs recommendation to withdraw private
respondentÊs degree. With the approval of the Board of
Regents and the U.P. Diliman Executive Committee,
Posadas created a five-man committee, chaired by Dr.
Paulino B. Zafaralla, with members selected from a list of
nominees screened by Dr. Emerenciana Arcellana, then a
member of the Board of Regents. On August 31, 1994, the
members of the Zafaralla committee and private
respondent met at U.P. Los Baños.

Meanwhile, on August 23, 1994, the U.P. Diliman
Registrar released to private respondent a copy of her
transcript of grades and certificate of graduation.
In a letter to Chancellor Posadas, dated September 1,
1994, private respondent requested that the Zafaralla
committee be provided with copies of the U.P. Charter (Act
No. 1870), the U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student
Conduct and Discipline, her letter-response to Chancellor
Roman, dated September 25, 1993, as well as all her other
communications.
On September 19, 1994, Chancellor Posadas obtained
the Zafaralla CommitteeÊs report, signed by its chairman,
recommending the withdrawal of16 private respondentÊs
doctorate degree. The report stated:
After going through all the pertinent documents of the case and
interviewing Ms. Arokiaswamy William, the following facts were
established:
1. There is overwhelming evidence of massive lifting from a published

source word for word and, at times, paragraph by paragraph without any
acknowledgment of the source, even by a mere quotation mark. At least
22 counts of such documented liftings were identified by the Committee.
_________________
16 Rollo, p. 137.
416

These form part of the approximately ninety (90) instances found

by the Committee created by the Dean of the College and
subsequently verified as correct by the Special Committee. These
instances involved the following forms of intellectual dishonesty:
direct lifting/copying without acknowledgment, full/partial lifting
with improper documentation and substitution of terms or words
(e.g., Tamil in place of Sanskrit, Tamilization in place of
Indianization) from an acknowledged source in support of her thesis
(attached herewith is a copy of the documents for reference); and
2. Ms. Arokiaswamy William herself admits of being guilty of the

allegation of plagiarism. Fact is, she informed the Special Committee
that she had been admitting having lifted several portions in her
dissertation from various sources since the beginning.
In view of the overwhelming proof of massive lifting and also on

the admission of Ms. Arokiaswamy William that she indeed
plagiarized, the Committee strongly supports the recommendation
of the U.P. Diliman Council to withdraw the doctoral degree of Ms.
Margaret Celine Arokiaswamy William.
On the basis of the report, the University Council, on

September 24, 1994, recommended to the Board of Regents
that private respondent be barred in the future from
admission to the University either as a student or as an
employee.
On January 4, 1995, the secretary of the Board 17
of
Regents sent private respondent the following letter:
4 January 1995
Ms. Margaret Celine Arokiaswamy William
Department of Anthropology
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
U.P. Diliman, Quezon City
Dear Ms. Arokiaswamy William:
This is to officially inform you about the action
taken by the Board of Regents at its 1081st and
1082nd meetings held last 17
__________________
17 Records, p. 192.
417
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 417

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs.
Court of Appeals
November and 16 December 1994 regarding your case,

the excerpts from the minutes of which are attached
herewith.
Please be informed that the members present at the

1081st BOR meeting on 17 November 1994 resolved,
by a majority decision, to withdraw your Ph.D. degree
as recommended by the U.P. Diliman University
Council and as concurred with by the External Review
Panel composed of senior faculty from U.P. Los Baños
and U.P. Manila. These faculty members were chosen
by lot from names submitted by the University
Councils of U.P. Los Baños and U.P. Manila.
In reply to your 14 December 1994 letter requesting
that you be given a good lawyer by the Board, the
Board, at its 1082nd meeting on 16 December 1994,
suggested that you direct your request to the Office of
Legal Aid, College of Law, U.P. Diliman.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.)
VIVENCIO R. JOSE
Secretary of the University
and of the Board of Regents
On January 18, 1995, private respondent wrote a letter to

Commissioner Sedfrey Ordoñez, Chairman of the
Commission 18on Human Rights, asking the commissionÊs
intervention. In a letter, dated February 14, 1995, to
Secretary Ricardo Gloria, Chairman of the Board of
Regents, she asked for a reinvestigation of her case. She
also sought an audience with the Board of Regents and/or
the U.P. President, which request was denied by President
Javier, in a letter dated June 2, 1995.
On August 10, 1995, private respondent then filed a
petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary
___________________
18 Commissioner Ordoñez sent a letter to the Board of Regents

requesting it to defer action on private respondentÊs case until the latter
had been given the opportunity to be heard. U.P. President Emil Q.
Javier responded with a letter, dated February 17, 1995, assuring
Commissioner Ordoñez that the decision on private respondentÊs case
was arrived at after compliance with the requirements of due process.
418

Appeals
mandatory injunction and damages, which was docketed as

Civil Case No. Q-95-24690 and assigned 19
to Branch 81 of
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. She alleged that
petitioners had unlawfully withdrawn her degree without
justification and without affording her procedural due
process. She prayed that petitioners be ordered to restore
her degree and to pay her P500,000.00 as moral and
exemplary damages and P1,500,000.00 as compensation for
lost earnings.
On August 6, 1996, the trial court, Branch 227, rendered
a decision
20
dismissing the petition for mandamus for lack of
merit. Private respondent appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which on December 16, 1997, reversed the lower
court. The dispositive
21
portion of the appellate courtÊs
decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby reversed

and set aside. Respondents are ordered to restore to petitioner her
degree of Ph.D. in Anthropology.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN

GRANTING THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ORDERING
PETITIONERS TO RESTORE RESPONDENTÊS DOCTORAL
DEGREE.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW

IN HOLDING THAT THE DOCTORAL DEGREE GIVEN
RESPONDENT BY U.P. CANNOT BE RECALLED WITHOUT
VIOLATING HER RIGHT TO ENJOYMENT OF INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY AND TO JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
__________________
19 It appears that the case was later transferred to Branch 227.

20 Rollo, pp. 83-97.
21Id., p. 56.
419
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 419

III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW

IN DEPRIVING PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO
22
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.
Petitioners argue that private respondent failed to show

that she had been unlawfully excluded from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which she is entitled so as
to justify the issuance of the writ of mandamus. They also
contend that she failed to prove that the restoration of her
degree is a ministerial duty of U.P. or that the withdrawal
of the degree violated her right to the enjoyment of
intellectual property.
On the other hand, private respondent, unassisted by
counsel, argue that petitioners acted arbitrarily and with
grave abuse of discretion in withdrawing her degree even
prior to verifying the truth of the plagiarism charge against
her; and that as her answer to the charges had not been
forwarded to the members of the investigating committees,
she was deprived of the opportunity to comment or refute
their findings.
In addition, private respondent maintains that
petitioners are estopped from withdrawing her doctorate
degree; that petitioners acted contrary to §9 of the U.P.
Charter and the U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student
Conduct and Discipline of the University, which according
to her, does not authorize the withdrawal of a degree as a
penalty for erring students; and that only the college
committee or the student disciplinary tribunal may decide
disciplinary cases, whose report must be signed by a
majority of its members.
We find petitionersÊ contention to be meritorious.

Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal,
corporation, board or person to do the act required to be
done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and
___________________
22 Rollo, pp. 33-34.
420

Appeals
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is

entitled, there being no other plain, speedy,
23
and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. In University
24
of the
Philippines Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan, this Court
ruled that the writ was not available to restrain U.P. from
the exercise of its academic freedom. In that case, a student
who was found guilty of dishonesty and ordered suspended
for one year by the Board of Regents, filed a petition for
mandamus and obtained from the lower court a temporary
restraining order stopping U.P. from carrying out the order
of suspension. In setting aside the TRO and ordering the
lower court to dismiss the studentÊs petition, this Court
said:
[T]he lower court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of
preliminary injunction of May 29, 1993. The issuance of the said
writ was based on the lower courtÊs finding that the implementation
of the disciplinary sanction of suspension on Nadal „would work
injustice to the petitioner as it would delay him in finishing his
course, and consequently, in getting a decent and good paying job.‰
Sadly, such a ruling considers only the situation of Nadal without
taking into account the circumstances, clearly of his own making,
which led him into such a predicament. More importantly, it has
completely disregarded the overriding issue of academic freedom
which provides more than ample justification for the imposition of a

disciplinary sanction upon an erring student of an institution of
higher learning.
From the foregoing arguments, it is clear that the lower court
should have restrained itself from assuming jurisdiction over the
petition filed by Nadal. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful
cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the
petitioner being required. It is of no avail against an official or
government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or
25
judgment.
In this case, the trial court dismissed private respondentÊs

petition precisely on grounds of academic freedom but the
___________________
23 RULES OF COURT, RULE 65, §3; Anchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman,

268 SCRA 301 (1997).
24 227 SCRA 342 (1993).
25Supra, at 361-362.
421
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 421

Appeals
Court of Appeals reversed holding that private respondent

was denied due process. It said:
It is worthy to note that during the proceedings taken by the

College Assembly culminating in its recommendation to the
University Council for the withdrawal of petitionerÊs Ph.D. degree,
petitioner was not given the chance to be heard until after the
withdrawal of the degree was consummated. PetitionerÊs
26
subsequent letters to the U.P. President proved unavailing.
As the foregoing narration of facts in this case shows,

however, various committees had been formed to
investigate the charge that private respondent had
committed plagiarism and, in all the investigations held,
she was heard in her defense. Indeed, if any criticism may
be made of the university proceedings before private
respondent was finally stripped of her degree, it is that

there were too many committee and individual
investigations conducted, although all resulted in a finding
that private respondent committed dishonesty in
submitting her doctoral dissertation on the basis of which
she was conferred the Ph.D. degree.
Indeed, in administrative proceedings, the essence of
due process is simply the opportunity to explain oneÊs side
of a controversy or a chance to27 seek reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. A party who has availed of
the opportunity to present his position 28
cannot tenably
claim to have been denied due process.
In this case, private respondent
29
was informed in writing
of the charges against her and afforded opportunities to
refute them. She was asked to submit her written
explanation,
__________________
26 Rollo, pp. 54-55.

27 Helpmate, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
112323, July 28, 1997, 276 SCRA 315; M. Ramirez Industries v. The
Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 89894, January
3, 1997, 266 SCRA 111.
28 Naguiat v. National Labor Relations Commission, 269 SCRA 564
(1997).
29 Records, pp. 48-49.
422

Appeals
30
which she forwarded on September 25, 1993. Private
respondent then met with the U.P. chancellor and the
members of the Zafaralla committee to discuss her case. In
addition, she sent several31
letters to the U.P. authorities
explaining her position.
It is not tenable for private respondent to argue that she
was entitled to have an audience before the Board of
Regents. Due process in an administrative context does not
require trial-type
32
proceedings similar to those in the courts
of justice. It is noteworthy that the U.P. Rules do not
require the attendance of persons whose cases are33
included
as items on the agenda of the Board of Regents.
Nor indeed was private respondent entitled to be
furnished a copy of the report of the Zafaralla committee as
part of her right to due34
process. In Ateneo de Manila
University v. Capulong, we held:
Respondent students may not use the argument that since they
were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written
statements which became the basis of petitionersÊ February 14,
1991 order, they were denied procedural due process. Granting that
they were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said to
detract from the observance of due process, for disciplinary cases
involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross
examination. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate
studentsÊ participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with
the attributes of a judicial proceeding . . .
In this case, in granting the writ of mandamus, the Court

of Appeals held:
__________________
30Id., pp. 50-58.

31Id., pp. 59-65; 79-80.
32 National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, 283 SCRA 275 (1997).
33 University of the Philippines v. Ligot-Telan, 227 SCRA 342 (1993).
34 222 SCRA 644 (1993).
423
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 423

Appeals
First. Petitioner graduated from the U.P. with a doctorate degree in

Anthropology. After graduation, the contact between U.P. and
petitioner ceased. Petitioner is no longer within the ambit of the
disciplinary powers of the U.P. As a graduate, she is entitled to the
right and enjoyment of the degree she has earned. To recall the
degree, after conferment, is not only arbitrary, unreasonable, and

an act of abuse, but a flagrant violation of petitionerÊs right of
enjoyment to intellectual property.
Second. Respondents aver that petitionerÊs graduation was a
mistake.
Unfortunately this „mistake‰ was arrived at after almost a year
after graduation. Considering that the members of the thesis panel,
the College Faculty Assembly, and the U.P. Council are all men and
women of the highest intellectual acumen and integrity, as
respondents themselves aver, suspicion is aroused that the alleged
„mistake‰ might not be the cause of withdrawal but some other
hidden agenda which respondents do not wish to reveal.
At any rate, We cannot countenance the plight the petitioner
finds herself enmeshed in as a consequence of the acts complained
of. Justice and equity demand that this be rectified by restoring the
degree conferred to her after her compliance with the academic and
other related requirements.
Art. XIV, §5 (2) of the Constitution provides that

„[a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of
higher learning.‰
35
This is nothing new. 36The 1935
Constitution and the 1973 Constitution likewise
provided for the academic freedom or, more precisely, for
the institutional autonomy of universities and institutions
of higher learning. As pointed out by this Court in Garcia v.
37
Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology,
it is a freedom granted to „institutions of higher learning‰
which is thus given „a wide sphere of authority certainly
extending to the choice of students.‰ If such institution of
higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study
in it, it certainly can also determine on
___________________
35 Art. XIV, §5.

36 Art. XV, §8 (2).
37 68 SCRA 277 (1975).
424

Appeals
whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its

graduates.
Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or
distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has
the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it
has thus conferred. This freedom of a university does not
terminate upon the „graduation‰ of a student, as the Court
of Appeals held. For it is precisely the „graduation‰ of such
a student that is in question. It is noteworthy that the
investigation of private respondentÊs case began before her
graduation. If she was able to join the graduation
ceremonies on April 24, 1993, it was because of too many
investigations conducted before the Board of Regents
finally decided she should not have been allowed to
graduate.
Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted to
institutions of higher learning, for the constitutional grant
of academic freedom, to quote again from Garcia v. Faculty
Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, „is not to
be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging
fashion.‰
Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the
highest governing
38
body of the University of the
Philippines. It has the power to confer degrees
39
upon the
recommendation of the University Council. It follows that
if the conferment of a degree is founded on error or fraud,
the Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the
observance of due process, to withdraw what it has granted
without violating a studentÊs rights. An institution of
higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers that an
academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully deserved.
Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a
universityÊs highest academic degree upon an individual
who has obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The
pursuit of academic excellence is the universityÊs concern.
It should be empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take
measures to protect itself from serious threats to its
integrity.
__________________
38 Act No. 1870, §4.

39Id., §9.
425
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 425

Appeals
While it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue
their education, the USC as an educational institution is also
entitled to pursue its academic freedom and in the process has the
40
concomitant right to see to it that this freedom is not jeopardized.
In the case at bar, the Board of Regents determined, after

due investigation conducted by a committee composed of
faculty members from different U.P. units, that private
respondent committed no less than ninety (90) instances of
intellectual dishonesty in her dissertation. The Board of
RegentsÊ decision to withdraw private respondentÊs
doctorate was based on documents on record 41
including her
admission that she committed the offense.
On the other hand, private respondent was afforded the
opportunity to be heard and explain her side but failed to
refute the charges of plagiarism against her. Her only claim
is that her responses to the charges against her were not
considered by the Board of Regents before it rendered its
decision. However, this claim was not proven. Accordingly,
we must presume regularity in the performance 42
of official
duties in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Very much the opposite of the position of the Court of
Appeals that, since private respondent was no longer a
student of the U.P., the latter was no longer within the
„ambit of disciplinary powers of the U.P.,‰ is private
respondentÊs contention that it is the Student Disciplinary
Tribunal which had jurisdiction over her case because the
charge is dishonesty. Private respondent invokes §5 of the
U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and
Discipline which provides:
Jurisdiction.·All cases involving discipline of students under these

rules shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the student disciplinary
tribunal, except the following cases which shall fall under the
jurisdiction of the appropriate college or unit;
____________________
40 Licup v. University of San Carlos, 178 SCRA 637 (1989).

41 Records, p. 192.
42 RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, §3 (m).
426

Appeals
(a) Violation of college or unit rules and regulations by students

of the college, or
(b) Misconduct committed by students of the college or unit
within its classrooms or premises or in the course of an
official activity;
Provided, that regional units of the University shall have original

jurisdiction over all cases involving students of such units.
Private respondent argues that under §25 (a) of the said

Rules and Regulations, dishonesty in relation to oneÊs
studies (i.e., plagiarism) may be punished only with
suspension for at least one (1) year.
As the above-quoted provision of §5 of the Rules and
Regulations indicates, the jurisdiction of the student
disciplinary tribunal extends only to disciplinary actions.
In this case, U.P. does not seek to discipline private
respondent. Indeed, as the appellate court observed,
private respondent is no longer within „the ambit of
disciplinary powers of the U.P.‰ Private respondent cannot
even be punished since, as she claims, the penalty for acts
of dishonesty in administrative disciplinary proceedings is
suspension from the University for at least one year. What
U.P., through the Board of Regents, seeks to do is to protect
its academic integrity by withdrawing from private
respondent an academic degree she obtained through
fraud.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

hereby REVERSED and the petition for mandamus is
hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing and Buena, JJ.,

concur.
Challenged decision reversed; petition for mandamus

dismissed.
Notes.·The individual faculty member has the freedom

to pursue his studies in his particular specialty and
thereafter to
427
VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 427

Appeals
make known or publish the result of his endeavors without

fear that retribution would be visited on him in the event
that this conclusions are found distasteful or objectionable
to the powers that be, whether in the political, economic, or
academic establishments. In contrast, the University has
the academic freedom to determine for itself on academic
grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall
be taught, and who may be admitted to study. (Reyes vs.
Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 402 [1991])
Educational institutions are afforded ample discretion to
formulate reasonable rules and regulations in the
admission of students, including setting of academic
standards. (University of San Agustin, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 230 SCRA 761 [1994])
··o0o··
428
© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

University of The Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of The Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

University of The Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF

Academic Freedom; Schools and Universities; Actions; Words

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 405

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals

proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals

„institutions of higher learning‰ which is thus given „a wide sphere

„graduation‰ of such a student that is in question. It is noteworthy

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 407

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals

draw what it has granted without violating a studentÊs rights. An

the universityÊs concern. It should be empowered, as an act of self-

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of Appeals

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

1 Per Associate Justice Artemio G. Tuquero and concurred in by

409 VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999

On December 22, 1992, Dr. Realidad S. Rolda, chairperson

Ms. Arokiaswamy must incorporate the suggestions I made during

2 Stated as 1883 in the Petition for Certiorari.

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pipirmahan ko ang pagsang-ayon/di pagsang-ayon kapag nakita ko

Dr. Teodoro added the following note to his signature:

Kailangang isagawa ang mga mahahalagang pagbabago at ipakita

In a letter, dated March 5, 1993 and addressed to her thesis

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 411

and Dr. Teodoro, relying on Dean PazÊs March 5, 1993

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Abril 21, 1993

Apparently, however, Dean PazÊs letter did not reach the

not be granted an academic clearance unless she

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 413

draft of her dissertation; and that Dr. Diokno was guilty of

On September 6, 1993, the Board of Regents deferred

9 Rollo, pp. 201-202.

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

During the meeting, Chancellor Roman informed private

position of the University Council in its report to the Board

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 415

although it showed that private respondent passed her

respondent met at U.P. Los Baños.

1. There is overwhelming evidence of massive lifting from a published

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

These form part of the approximately ninety (90) instances found

2. Ms. Arokiaswamy William herself admits of being guilty of the

In view of the overwhelming proof of massive lifting and also on

On the basis of the report, the University Council, on

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 417

November and 16 December 1994 regarding your case,

Please be informed that the members present at the

On January 18, 1995, private respondent wrote a letter to

18 Commissioner Ordoñez sent a letter to the Board of Regents

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

mandatory injunction and damages, which was docketed as

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby reversed