Title
Ateneo De Manila University vs. Capulong
Case
G.R. No. 99327
Decision Date
May 27, 1993
Ateneo students expelled for hazing resulting in a death; Supreme Court upheld dismissal, affirming due process and academic freedom.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 99327)

Administrative Investigation: Notices, Extensions, and Findings of Prima Facie Case

The Joint Investigating Committee, after receiving written statements and hearing testimony, issued a February 14, 1991 finding of prima facie violation of Rule No. 3 (hazing). Students were directed to file formal answers by February 18 and later by February 22. Respondent students moved to hold investigations in abeyance pending receipt of evidence. A Disciplinary Board was created on February 20, 1991 to hear formal charges; notice letters individualized the charge and stated the nature of the evidence (testimonies of students/affiants). The Board informed respondents that proceedings would be summary (citing Guzman), that cross-examination of affiants-neophytes would not be permitted, and that “hazing” would for purposes of the investigation be defined in accordance with Senate Bill No. 3815.

Hearings, Board Resolution, and University Decision

A clarificatory hearing occurred on March 2, 1991. The Disciplinary Board on March 9, 1991 found respondents guilty of violating Rule No. 3, characterizing them as master auxiliaries or “auxies” who exercised an “auxie’s privilege” and who failed to prevent further corporal punishment of neophytes; the Board found guilt either by active participation or acquiescence. The Board lacked unanimity on dismissal and left the penalty to the University Administration. Dean del Castillo waived review and the University President, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, accepted the Board’s factual findings and characterized the offense as grave and subversive of the goals of Christian education; he imposed the penalty of dismissal on the students named in the March 10, 1991 resolution. Two students (Abas and Mendoza) were excluded from the March 10 resolution pending their submission to the Board; a Special Board later investigated and on May 20, 1991 dismissed Abas and Mendoza.

Procedural Posture: RTC Intervention, TROs, and Preliminary Injunction

Respondent students filed petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus in the RTC of Makati alleging denial of due process and seeking TROs to prevent dismissal and to enable them to take examinations. An initial TRO issued March 18, 1991 lapsed on April 7, 1991. After further proceedings the RTC (Judge Capulong, and an acting/pairing judge) ordered reinstatement on May 17, 1991, directed special examinations to be given, and required a bond of P50,000; petitioners (Ateneo) sought relief in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on May 30, 1991 enjoining enforcement of the RTC reinstatement order and later resolved the special civil action under Rule 65.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Two central issues were framed: (1) whether a school may, consistent with constitutional protection of academic freedom, expel students under its disciplinary rules and moral standards; and (2) whether the particular penalty imposed by the University (dismissal/expulsion) was proper given the circumstances. Ancillary issues included whether the respondents were denied procedural due process in the disciplinary proceedings and whether the petitioners’ invocation of Rule 65 was procedurally proper (exhaustion of remedies).

Standard for Due Process in Academic Disciplinary Proceedings

The Court applied the Guzman v. National University standard for minimum procedural due process in school disciplinary cases, which requires: (1) written notice of the nature and cause of the accusation; (2) the right to answer with assistance of counsel; (3) information of evidence against the student; (4) the right to adduce evidence in defense; and (5) due consideration of the evidence by the investigating body. The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that Ang Tibay (a labor/security-of-tenure context) rather than Guzman should govern; Guzman was deemed controlling for academic-discipline proceedings.

Court’s Evaluation of the Disciplinary Process (Procedural Due Process)

The Supreme Court found the procedural requirements under Guzman were satisfied: respondents received individualized written notices (February 11, 14, 20), were afforded opportunities to file statements and answers (with extensions), were represented by counsel from the outset, and were given hearings (including clarificatory questions on March 2). The Court held that denial of opportunity to cross-examine affiants-neophytes did not amount to deprivation of due process in administrative disciplinary inquiries of this summary character. The Court emphasized that academic disciplinary proceedings are administrative, not criminal, and need not conform to full criminal evidentiary or procedural features (e.g., formal criminal specification or cross-examination rights). The board’s consideration of written statements and witness testimony was adequate; the respondents’ claim that they were not shown written statements did not vitiate due process under the standards applicable to schools.

Definition of “Hazing” and Notice of Charge

The Court addressed the argument that “hazing” was not defined in the catalogue and that respondents lacked notice. It held that in administrative disciplinary context precision required in criminal pleadings is unnecessary. The school had given notice that hazing would be defined for purposes of the investigation according to Senate Bill No. 3815; the Court found this sufficient for investigatory and disciplinary purposes.

Academic Freedom: Constitutional Foundation and Institutional Prerogatives

The Court reiterated the constitutional protection of academic freedom embodied in Article XIV, Section 5(2) of the 1987 Constitution (academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning). The decision reviewed the historic and doctrinal bases for academic freedom—both individual (who may teach, how to teach) and institutional (what shall be taught, who may be admitted). The Court reaffirmed precedent (Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology and related cases) that admission and continued enrollment are privileges subject to institutional academic and disciplinary standards, and that private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules for admission, discipline, and promotion of students.

Deference to Institutional Judgment on Disciplinary Sanctions

The Court accepted the Ateneo administration’s characterization of the offenses as contrary to the school’s religious and moral mission and stressed that universities exist to develop intellect and inculcate values. Given the severe consequences of the hazing incident—death and serious injury—the Court found dismissal to be a reasonable and proportionate sanction. It emphasized the potential undermining of institutional authority and the threat to a morally conducive educational environment if disciplined students were immediately reinstated. The Court cited prior cases recognizing a school’s interest in maintaining order and moral environment (Yap Chin Fah) and the requirement of congruence between offense and sanction (Malabanan v. Ramento).

Procedural Justification for Invoking Rule 65 and SC Intervention

Respondents argued petitioners should have exhausted remedies (filed motion for reconsideration in trial court and appealed to Court of Appeals) before Supreme Court review. The Court recognized exhaustion exceptions where a pure question of law exists. Here the central question—whether respondents had been afforded procedural due process—was a question of law appropriate for Rule 65 relief; thus, the Court accepted the petition.

Holding and Relief

The Supreme Court granted the petition: it held that the RTC judge (Capulong) committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering reinstatement, because respondents were not denied due process in the disciplinary proceedings and the University’s imposition of dismissal was prop

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms