Title
Malaba vs. Ramento
Case
G.R. No. 62270
Decision Date
May 21, 1984
Student leaders suspended for unauthorized rally location and duration; Supreme Court ruled one-year suspension excessive, upholding free speech and assembly rights, reducing penalty to one week.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 146683)

Facts:

  • Parties
    • Petitioners: Crispin Malabanan, Evelio Jalos, Den Luther Lucas, Sotero Leonero and June (students and officers of the Supreme Student Council of Gregorio Araneta University Foundation).
    • Respondents:
      • Anastacio D. Ramento, Director, National Capital Region, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MECS)
      • Gregorio Araneta University Foundation and its officers (President, Director for Academic Affairs, Dean of Student Affairs, Chief Legal Counsel & Security Supervisor, Ad Hoc Committee members)
  • Events Leading to Dispute
    • On August 27, 1982, petitioners obtained a permit from the university to hold a general assembly from 8:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. at the Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science (VMAS) basketball court.
    • They held the assembly at the second-floor lobby instead of the basketball court; they criticized the proposed merger of two institutes.
    • At about 10:30 A.M., they marched to the Life Science Building, used megaphones, disrupted classes and non-academic work outside the permit area and beyond the permitted time.
    • The university sought their explanation; on September 9, 1982, petitioners were placed under preventive suspension for holding an “illegal assembly.”
    • On October 20, 1982, respondent Ramento affirmed the university’s finding of guilt under par. 146(c) of the Manual for Private Schools and imposed a one-year suspension.
    • Petitioners filed certiorari, prohibition and mandamus proceedings before this Court and obtained on November 16, 1982, a temporary restraining order (TRO) staying enforcement of the suspension.
    • Public and private respondents filed comments defending the suspension (public respondent arguing mootness; private respondents seeking lifting of the TRO).

Issues:

  • Whether the one-year suspension violated petitioners’ constitutional rights to freedom of peaceable assembly and free speech.
  • Whether the sanction was disproportionate to the infraction, giving rise to a due process violation.
  • Whether the petition was moot or whether judicial determination remains necessary.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.