Title
Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 127930
Decision Date
Dec 15, 2000
Students challenged Miriam College's disciplinary actions over "obscene" articles in a school publication, arguing jurisdiction under the Campus Journalism Act. The Supreme Court upheld the school's authority to discipline, citing academic freedom, while protecting students from sanctions solely based on written content.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127930)

Facts of the Publication and Allegations

In September–October 1994, the student newspaper Chi-Rho and its literary magazine Ang Magasing Pampanitikan published fictional and poetic pieces with explicit sexual content described by some as “obscene,” “vulgar,” and “injurious to young readers.” Sequences depicted erotic dance, simulated intercourse, and crude imagery. Poems included erotic metaphors and suggestive illustrations.

Disciplinary Proceedings at Miriam College

On November 4, 1994, Dr. Sevilla notified the editorial board members and authors of complaints alleging multiple handbook violations, scheduled an inquiry, and required written answers. The students refused, asserting campus-journalism autonomy under RA 7079 and DECS Order No. 94. The Discipline Committee conducted an ex parte investigation and the Discipline Board imposed sanctions: expulsion (Briones, Renacido, Ramos), dismissal with transfer credentials (Carpio, Gomez), suspensions of varying lengths, and withholding of graduation privileges (Portugal).

Regional Trial Court Proceedings

The affected students petitioned the RTC of Quezon City for certiorari and prohibition with injunction, challenging the school’s jurisdiction over campus journalism matters. On January 17, 1995, the RTC denied a temporary restraining order. On February 10, 1995, the RTC granted a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of expulsion/dismissal against five students and barring campus exclusion or grade withholding; lesser sanctions on the others remained. Both parties moved for reconsideration and on February 22, 1995, the RTC dismissed the petition without prejudice, recalling all prior orders.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The students filed a petition in the CA, which on May 19, 1995 issued a TRO against enforcing disciplinary measures. After briefing, the CA on September 26, 1996 granted certiorari, declared the RTC’s dismissal of injunction void, and voided the suspensions and dismissals, holding that DECS regional offices had exclusive jurisdiction under DECS Order No. 94.

Issues on Mootness and Jurisdiction

  1. Whether the controversy had become moot due to lapse of time and purported enforcement of the CA’s TRO.
  2. Whether the RTC had jurisdiction to entertain the students’ certiorari petition.
  3. Whether Miriam College had authority to impose disciplinary sanctions on campus journalists.
  4. Whether DECS regional offices or the school had jurisdiction under RA 7079 and its IRR.

Applicable Law: 1987 Constitution, RA 7079, and DECS Order No. 94

– 1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, Secs. 3(2) (duties of educational institutions) and 5(2) (academic freedom of higher education).
– RA 7079 (Campus Journalism Act of 1991): guarantees editorial autonomy, prohibits expulsion/suspension “solely on the basis of articles … written,” and tasks DECS to promulgate implementing rules.
– DECS Order No. 94, Series of 1992, Rule XII, Sec. 1: grants DECS regional offices original jurisdiction over appeals from editorial board decisions.

Supreme Court Ruling on Mootness

The Court held the case non-moot because the CA issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) with a 20-day lifespan under the Rules of Court, not a preliminary injunction. The TRO lapsed, and Miriam College never readmitted the students, maintaining the controversy. The CA wrongly assumed compliance and mootness without proof; the students’ affidavit demonstrated denial of readmission.

Supreme Court Ruling on Jurisdiction of the RTC

The SC affirmed that jurisdictional questions (whether DECS or the school could decide) are legal in nature and properly resolved by the judiciary. The RTC erred in dismissing the petition “to avoid docket congestion.” A court with jurisdiction has the duty to decide, not to dismiss on forum-shopping grounds.

Supreme Court Ruling on Institutional Academic Freedom and Disciplinary Power

Under the 1987 Constitution, private higher‐education institutions enjoy academic freedom to determine “what may be taught,” “how it shall be taught,” and “who may be admitted.” They may enforce rules and discipline to maintain an orderly educational environment and fulfil their constitutional duty to develop moral character and personal discipline. Jurisprudence (e.g., Ateneo de Manila Univ. v. Capulong) upholds a school’s right to expel or suspend studen

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.