Case Summary (G.R. No. 138810)
Court of Appeals and Trial Court Interventions
Aguilar filed a Rule 65 petition in the RTC, securing a TRO on June 6, 1995, and later a writ of preliminary injunction (September 20, 1995) compelling DLSU to enroll him. DLSU’s certiorari petition to the CA (CA-G.R. SP No. 38719) resulted in a preliminary injunction for DLSU on April 12, 1996. CHED’s Resolution 181-96 (May 14, 1996) disapproved expulsion and reinstated or excluded respondents accordingly. The CA dismissed DLSU’s petition July 30, 1996, denied reconsideration October 15, 1996, and the RTC reiterated its injunction January 7, 1997.
Authority of CHED over Disciplinary Cases
Under R.A. 7722, CHED is an independent agency attached to the President for administrative purposes, with jurisdiction over all public and private institutions of higher education. Its powers under Section 8 and the transitory provisions transferred DECS’s supervisory functions in tertiary programs to CHED. MRPS Section 77 must be read in light of CHED’s expanded mandate.
Due Process and Academic Freedom
The Court affirmed that private respondents received full due process—written notice, right to counsel, opportunity to present and know evidence, and a deliberative hearing. DLSU’s academic freedom, guaranteed by the 1987 Constitution (Art. XIV, Sec. 5(2)), includes the determination of admissions, curriculum, teaching methods, and disciplinary standards, subject only to overriding public interest.
Evaluation of Alibi and Substantial Evidence
In administrative discipline, decisions rest on substantial evidence. The alibis of Bungubung, Reverente and Valdes, Jr. were rejected against consistent eyewitness identifications. Aguilar’s alibi was deemed credible and corroborated by police certifications from Camp Crame, satisfying the burden to demonstrate his absence and the impossibility of his presence at the incident site.
Proportionality of Sanctions
While universities may impose discipline under their academic freedom, sanctions must be commensurate with miscondu
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 138810)
Nature of the Petition
- Petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
- Seeks to annul and set aside:
• CA Resolution (July 30, 1996) dismissing DLSU’s certiorari petition
• CA Resolution (October 15, 1996) denying reconsideration
• RTC Branch 36 Order (January 7, 1997) reiterating writ of preliminary injunction
• CHED Resolution No. 181-96 (May 14, 1996) modifying disciplinary penalties
Factual Antecedents
- Two violent “mauling” incidents on March 29, 1995 involving rival fraternities: Domino Lux (victims) vs. Tau Gamma Phi (respondents)
- First incident near DLSU’s Engineering Gate: James Yap assaulted by 8–10 Tau Gamma Phi members
- Second incident along Dagonoy Street: Dennis Pascual, Ericson Cano and Michael Perez beaten by members of Tau Gamma Phi
- Injuries were non-fatal but occurred quickly and in groups
Institutional Disciplinary Proceedings
- Complaints filed March 30–31, 1995 before DLSU–CSB Joint Discipline Board
- Notices of hearing dated April 12, 1995 informing respondents of charges under CHED Order No. 4
- Respondents appeared, answered charges and presented alibi defenses supported by affidavits and certifications
- Board Resolution (May 3, 1995): expulsion of Aguilar, Bungubung, Lee and Reverente; acquittal of Papio
- Reconsideration motions denied (June 1, 1995) by DLSU Senior VP for Internal Operations
Lower Court and Administrative Actions
- Aguilar’s Rule 65 petition and TRO (June 6, 1995) before RTC Branch 36 enjoining May 3 and June 1 resolutions
- Petitions-in-intervention by Bungubung, Reverente and Valdes; preliminary injunction granted Sept 20, 1995
- DLSU’s certiorari petition to CA (Oct 16, 1995); CA grants preliminary injunction April 12, 1996
- CHED Resolution No. 181-96 (May 14, 1996): disapproves expulsion, orders reinstatement of Aguilar and exclusion (not expulsion) o