with the RTC of Makati for a petition pf certiorari prohibition and mandamus

With the rtc of makati for a petition pf certiorari

This preview shows page 10 - 12 out of 29 pages.

with the RTC of Makati for a petition pf certiorari, prohibition and mandamus which centered on the alleged lack of procedural due process in their dismissal because they were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written statements which became the basis of petitioner’s order. The RTC ruled in favor of respondent students and ordered the petitioners to reinstate them and to conduct special examinations. Hence, this petition. The threshold argument of respondent students is that the decision of Fr. Bernas to expel them was arrived at without affording them their right to procedural due process. Issue: Whether or not respondent students were accorded due process in their dismissal. Held: YES. In the case of Guzman v. National University , the minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institution was laid out, thus; a.) the students be informed in writing of the nature and cause of accusations against them; b.) they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if desired; c.) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; d.) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; e.) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case. It cannot be asserted that these requirements were not met. Respondent students were notified and required to submit their written statements on the incidents, they were given ample opportunity to adduce evidence in their behalf and to answer the charges leveled against them. The requisite of counsel was met from the very start of the investigations. Respondent students may not use the argument that, since they were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written statements which became the bases of petitioner’s order of dismissal, that they were denied procedural due process. Disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination, an administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. As such, it is not subject to the rigorous requirements of criminal due process, due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings identical to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. We deem this sufficient for purposes of the investigation under scrutiny In light also of the “Academic Freedom” granted by the Constitution to educational institutions of higher learning, we affirm the petitioner’s imposition of the penalty of dismissal upon respondent students. CUDIA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PMA (G.R. No. 211362, February 24, 2015) Facts: On Janury 7, 2014, Maj. Hindang reported 1CL Cudia to the Honor Committee in violation of the honor code for Lying. 1CL Cudia told Maj. Hindang that he was late because his 4 th period class ended at 10
Image of page 10
1500H that made him late in the succeeding class. On January 15, 2014, the HC constituted a team to
Image of page 11
Image of page 12

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture