Title
Source: Supreme Court
St. Louis University, Inc. vs. Olairez
Case
G.R. No. 162299
Decision Date
Mar 26, 2014
Medical students challenged SLU’s revised graduation requirements; court ruled in their favor, but contempt charges against SLU were reversed due to due process violations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 162299)

Factual Background

On March 18, 2002, Olairez and Rebucal filed for injunctive relief in the RTC of Baguio City (Civil Case No. 5191-R) to enjoin enforcement of the revised COWE allegedly imposed without basis in SLU’s student handbook. Banta and Badecao later intervened. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction on April 9, 2002 and allowed them to participate in graduation rites.

RTC Judgment on Merits

On July 16, 2003, the RTC declared the group graduates of SLU’s College of Medicine, citing CHED’s certification of course completion and SLU’s own conduct in permitting commencement participation. The court ordered SLU to issue clearances, diplomas, transcripts, stop pressuring internship-granting bodies, and dismissed all damage claims.

Indirect Contempt Proceedings in RTC

After SLU filed a notice of appeal, the students on July 17, 2003 moved to cite SLU in indirect contempt for noncompliance. The RTC scheduled a show-cause hearing, issued a writ of execution on July 18, 2003, and on July 23, 2003 found Dean Dacanay and SLU officials guilty of indirect contempt under Rule 71, sentencing fines and conditioning the students’ board-exam eligibility on enforcement.

CA Dismissal of Certiorari Petition

SLU filed a Rule 65 certiorari petition before the Court of Appeals (CA-SP-78127), challenging the contempt show-cause order, writ of execution, and related orders. On November 18, 2003 and February 10, 2004, the CA dismissed the petition for failure to file a prior motion for reconsideration, holding that remedy was available in the trial court.

CA Reversal of Contempt Ruling

SLU’s appeal from the July 23, 2003 contempt order (CA-CR-27861) resulted in the CA’s April 7, 2006 Decision and September 11, 2006 Resolution recalling and setting aside the contempt finding. The CA held SLU was denied reasonable opportunity to be heard, violating due process under Rule 71.

Issues on Review in G.R. No. 162299

  1. Whether the CA erred in dismissing SLU’s Rule 65 petition on grounds of appeal pendency.
  2. Whether the CA erred in requiring a motion for reconsideration before entertaining certiorari.

Issues on Review in G.R. No. 174758

  1. Whether the CA abused discretion in finding violation of the three-day notice rule under Rule 15, § 4.
  2. Whether SLU was denied due process in the contempt proceedings.
  3. Whether the students’ initial motion sufficed as a motion for execution.

Supreme Court Analysis – Motion for Reconsideration Requirement

Under Rule 65, a motion for reconsideration is generally required before certiorari, serving to allow the lower court to correct errors. Exceptions exist—e.g., patent nullity or urgency—but SLU failed to establish any applicable exception. The 1987 Constitution demands strict compliance with procedural rules to ensure orderly justice; permitting SLU’s omission would undermine that discipline.

Supreme Court Analy

...continue reading

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