Case Summary (G.R. No. 201176)
Petitioner
Ateneo de Manila University, Father Joaquín Bernas, S.J., Dean Cynthia Roxas-Del Castillo, members of the Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee, Disciplinary Board, and Special Board.
Respondent
Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, Presiding Judge, RTC-Makati, Branch 134; private respondents Adel Abas, Zosimo Mendoza, and co-students.
Key Dates
• February 8–10, 1991 – Aquila Legis initiation rites; student Leonardo Villa dies, Bienvenido Marquez hospitalized.
• February 11, 1991 – Dean’s notice creating Joint Committee; preventive suspensions.
• February 14 & 20, 1991 – Committee finds prima facie violation of Rule 3 (hazing); Disciplinary Board convened; deadlines set for answers.
• March 2, 1991 – Summary hearing under Guzman v. National University.
• March 9–10, 1991 – Board resolution finds guilt; President Bernas affirms and imposes dismissal.
• March 18, 1991 – RTC petition for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus; TRO issued.
• April 7, 1991 – TRO lapses; Special Board constituted for Abas and Mendoza.
• May 17–21, 1991 – RTC orders reinstatement and exams; Special Board again imposes dismissal; preliminary injunction posted by students.
• May 30, 1991 – Supreme Court issues TRO on RTC order.
• May 27, 1993 – Decision rendered by the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XIV, Section 5(2) – academic freedom in all institutions of higher learning.
• Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline, Rule 3 – prohibition of hazing, drunkenness, violence.
• Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Section 146 – grounds for suspension, dismissal, or expulsion.
• Guzman v. National University (1986) – minimal due-process requirements in student disciplinary proceedings.
• Alcuaz v. PSBA, Non v. Dames II – procedural standards; Ang Tibay – general due process.
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 (Education Act of 1982) – student right to choose and continue courses, subject to institutional standards.
Facts
Members of the Aquila Legis fraternity conducted initiation rites involving physical hazing. First-year law student Leonardo Villa died; another neophyte suffered acute renal failure. The University’s Joint Committee and subsequent Disciplinary Board investigated, finding private respondents acted as “master auxiliaries” or “auxies,” facilitating and acquiescing in the hazing.
Procedural History
- Administrative Investigation – written notices (Feb 11, 14, 20) and summary hearing (Mar 2) accorded respondents written charges, opportunity to answer, counsel, and to present evidence.
- Disciplinary Board Resolution – dated March 9, 1991, unanimously found guilt; penalty recommendation left to University President.
- University President’s Decision – March 10, 1991, affirmed findings and imposed dismissal for grave misconduct.
- RTC Proceedings – March 18, 1991 petition for certiorari/prohibition/mandamus; temporary restraining order issued; later preliminary injunction ordering reinstatement and examinations for respondents.
- Supreme Court Intervention – May 30, 1991 TRO on RTC order; May 27, 1993 final decision.
Issues
- Whether under the 1987 Constitution’s guarantee of academic freedom, a private university may expel enrolled students for violation of its disciplinary rules.
- Whether procedural due process was observed in the disciplinary proceedings and whether the penalty of dismissal was commensurate with the offense.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Supreme Court finds:
• The University acted within its constitutional prerogative of academic freedom to establish and enforce disciplinary standards, including expulsion for hazing.
• Respondent students were afforded procedural due process in accordance with Guzman, having received written charges, opportunity to answer, legal assistance, notice of evidence, and a hearing.
• The penalty of dismissal was proper, reasonable, and proportionate to the grave misconduct resulting i
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 201176)
Facts
- In February 1991, Aquila Legis—a fraternity at the Ateneo Law School—held initiation rites requiring physical hazing.
- Leonardo “Lennie” H. Villa, a first-year law student, died of serious injuries on February 10, 1991; another neophyte, Bienvenido Marquez, was hospitalized with acute renal failure.
- Respondent students, already enrolled in the Ateneo Law School, acted as “master auxiliaries” (auxies) facilitating the hazardous rites.
Initial Investigation
- On February 11, 1991, Dean Cynthia Roxas-del Castillo constituted a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee and required written statements from the suspected students within 24 hours.
- Respondents failed to file statements in time and were placed on preventive suspension; they instead sought through counsel copies of the charges and affidavits.
Disciplinary Board Proceedings
- A prima facie finding of violation of Rule No. 3 (prohibiting hazing) was issued on February 14, 1991, after obtaining statements and witness testimonies; written answers were due by February 18.
- On February 20, 1991, Dean del Castillo appointed a Disciplinary Board (Judge Kapunan, Justice Escolin, Fiscal Albar, Atty. Herras, Atty. Casis) to hear the formal charges.
- Respondents were informed: proceedings would be summary; no cross-examination of affiants; “hazing” to be defined per Senate Bill No. 3815; penalty recommendations to consider degree of participation; decisions appealable to the University President.
Board Findings and Recommendations
- In its March 9, 1991 resolution, the Board found respondents guilty as active participants or through acquiescence, highlighting their failure to prevent further abuse of neophytes.
- Due to lack of unanimity on dismissal, the Board deferred penalty imposition to the University Administration.
University Administration Action
- President Fr. Joaquin