G.R. No. L-47994-97 - Maximo vs. Gerochi, Jr.

Petitioner Mely Tangonan was admitted on a probationary basis at the Capitol Medical Center School of Nursing in May 1975 for the school year 1975–1976.
Her admission was contingent upon the submission of a sealed "Honorable Dismissal" and a "Transcript of Records" valid for transfer; however, she initially provided unsealed documents on her promise to replace them with the official records.
She enrolled for two semesters under these conditions.

During her second semester, petitioner flunked in Psychiatric Nursing and was allowed to cross-enroll in the subject during the Summer 1976 term at De Ocampo Memorial School.
Her academic record also included a failing grade in Communicable Disease Nursing from her previous school (PCC-Mary Johnston Hospital School of Nursing).
In the clinical area, she was noted to have:

Stopped reporting for clinical experience required during the summer term without notifying the clinical coordinator.
Had frequent absences that negatively impacted her clinical performance.

At the De Ocampo Memorial School, petitioner was reported to have attempted to bribe Dean Florencia Pagador with P50.00 in order to have her name included in the list of enrolled students for Summer 1976.
This act was subsequently confirmed by her own apology letter dated May 14, 1976, wherein she expressed regret and requested official enrollment.

On June 14, 1976, petitioner applied for re-enrolment at the Capitol Medical Center School of Nursing.
Her application was referred to the Guidance Counsellor due to several pending issues:

The requirement to replace the initially submitted admission records with official, sealed documents.
The results and inconsistency of her cross-enrolment for the summer term.
The need to explain the bribery attempt, corroborated by a Xerox copy of her apology letter.

On June 25, 1976, the Board of Admission held a meeting to deliberate on the petitioner's case.
The Board’s findings were categorized as follows:

Academic Performance: Highlighting her probationary admission, failure in Psychiatric Nursing, and prior academic deficiencies.
Clinical Performance: Noting average clinical performance, incomplete clinical experience, and unexplained absences.
Attitudes and Behaviours: Emphasizing her failure to register on time, her attempt to bribe the dean, violation of school rules, and refusal to provide an appropriate letter of apology or explanation through proper channels.

Based on these findings, the Board recommended that petitioner be declared an undesirable student and be denied re-admission, although they suggested that she might be issued transfer credentials to another school.

Petitioner initially lodged a complaint with the Department of Education, Regional Office No. 4.
A conference was held with the school’s authorities, during which petitioner agreed to transfer to another institution.
Instead of proceeding with the transfer, petitioner filed a petition for Mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XVIII, seeking:

A preliminary mandatory injunction with damages.
An order compelling the respondents (including the school and a judge) to admit her on a probationary basis upon payment of the requisite fees.

Pre-trial proceedings involved several conferences and submissions of memoranda, affidavits, and other pertinent documents.

A second pre-trial conference on October 7, 1976, underscored that the case was one of law, as there was “no factual issue involved.”
Respondents manifested that another nursing school, the College of Nursing of Ortanez University, was willing to admit petitioner subject to certain conditions.

Despite these developments, on October 22, 1976, the lower court rendered a decision dismissing the petition and dissolving the earlier granted preliminary injunctive relief.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and she subsequently elevated the case to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages.

Whether the respondent judge acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by dismissing petitioner’s petition for mandamus without affording her a formal hearing on the merits.

Whether the extraordinary remedy of mandamus is available to an aggrieved party who was denied enrolment without lawful ground, particularly when petitioner was expelled by a private institution without being given the opportunity to be heard.
Whether the denial amounted to an unlawful exclusion while permitting others similarly situated to enroll.

Whether the decision rendered by the lower court and the administrative findings are consonant with the law and supported by the evidence on record.
Whether the respondent school’s exercise of its discretionary power in admissions infringed upon any constitutional or statutory rights of the petitioner.