1 Scruuc

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 89317 May 20, 1990
ARIEL NON, REX MAGANA, ALVIN AGURA, NORMANDY OCCIANO, JORGE DAYAON, LOURDES
BANARES, BARTOLOME IBASCO, EMMANUEL BARBA, SONNY MORENO, GIOVANI PALMA,
JOSELITO VILLALON, LUIS SANTOS, and DANIEL TORRES, petitioners,
vs.
HON. SANCHO DANES II, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of 5th Regional Trial Court, Br. 38, Daet,
Camarines Norte; and MABINI COLLEGES, INC., represented by its president ROMULO ADEVA and by
the chairman of the Board of Trustees, JUSTO LUKBAN, respondents.
Antonio A. Ayo Jr. and Soliman M. Santos, Jr., for petitioners
Pedro A. Venida Agustin A. Ferrer and Gil F. Echaro for private respondents.
CORTES, J.:
Petitioners urge the Court en banc to review and reverse the doctrine laid down in Alcuaz, et al. v. Philippine School
of Business Administration, et al., G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988, 161 SCRA 7, to the effect that a college student,
once admitted by the school, is considered enrolled only for one semester and, hence, may be refused readmission
after the semester is over, as the contract between the student and the school is deemed terminated.
Petitioners, students in private respondent Mabini Colleges, Inc. in Daet, Camarines Norte, were not allowed to re-
enroll by the school for the academic year 1988-1989 for leading or participating in student mass actions against the
school in the preceding semester. The subject of the protests is not, however, made clear in the pleadings.
Petitioners filed a petition in the court a quo seeking their readmission or re-enrollment to the school, but the trial
court dismissed the petition in an order dated August 8, 1988; the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and the fact that the ruling in the Alcuaz vs. PSBA is exactly
on the point at issue in this case but the authority of the school regarding admission of students,
save as a matter of compassionate equity when any of the petitioners would, at the least, qualify
for re-enrollment, this petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED. [Rollo, p. 12-A.]
A motion for reconsideration was filed, but this was denied by the trial court on February 24, 1989 in this wise:
Perhaps many will agree with the critical comment of Joaquin G. Bernas S.J., and that really there
must be a better way of treating students and teachers than the manner ruled (not suggested) by the
Supreme Court, the Termination of Contract at the end of the semester, that is.
But applicable rule in the case is that enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sophia
Alcuaz, et al. vs. Philippine School of Business Administration, Quezon City Branch (PSBA), et
al., G.R. No. 76353, May 2, 1988; that of the termination at the end of the semester, reason for the
critical comments of Joaquin G. Bernas and Doods Santos, who both do not agree with the ruling.
Petitioners' claim of lack of due process cannot prosper in view of their failure to specifically deny
respondent's affirmative defenses that "they were given all the chances to air their grievances on
February 9, 10, 16, and 18, 1988, and also on February 22, 1988 during which they were
represented by Atty. Jose L. Lapak" and that on February 22, 1988, the date of the resumption of
classes at Mabini College, petitioners continued their rally picketing, even though without any
renewal permit, physically coercing students not to attend their classes, thereby disrupting the
scheduled classes and depriving a great majority of students of their right to be present in their
classes.
Against this backdrop, it must be noted that the petitioners waived their privilege to be admitted
for re-enrollment with respondent college when they adopted, signed, and used its enrollment form
for the first semester of school year 1988-89. Said form specifically states that:
The Mabini College reserves the right to deny admission of students whose
scholarship and attendance are unsatisfactory and to require withdrawal of
students whose conduct discredits the institution and/or whose activities unduly
disrupts or interfere with the efficient operation of the college. Students,
therefore, are required to behave in accord with the Mabini College code of
conduct and discipline.
In addition, for the same semester, petitioners duly signed pledges which among others uniformly
reads:
In consideration of my admission to the Mabini College and of my privileges as

student of this institution, I hereby pledge/ promise under oath to abide and
comply with all the rules and regulations laid down by competent authorities in
the College Department or School in which I am enrolled. Specifically:
xxx xxx xxx
3. I will respect my Alma Matter the Mabini College, which I represent and see
to it that I conduct myself in such a manner that the college wig not be put to a
bad light;
xxx xxx xxx
9. I will not release false or unauthorized announcement which tend to cause

confusion or disrupt the normal appreciation of the college.
Moreover, a clear legal right must first be established for a petition for mandamus to prosper (Sec.
3, Rule 65). It being a mere privilege and not a legal right for a student to be enrolled or
reenrolled, respondent Mabini College is free to admit or not admit the petitioners for re-
enrollment in view of the academic freedom enjoyed by the school in accordance with the
Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Garcia vs. Faculty [Admission Committee] (G.R. No.
40779, November 28, 1975) and Tangonon vs. Pano, et al. (L-45157, June 27, 1985).
WHEREFORE, premises and jurisprudence considered, and for lack of merit, the motion for
reconsideration of the order of this Court dated August 8, 1988 is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED. [Rollo pp. 15-16.]
Hence, petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari with prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction.
The case was originally assigned to the Second Division of the Court, which reso

1 Scruuc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Scruuc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Scruuc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

G.R. No. 89317 May 20, 1990

Antonio A. Ayo Jr. and Soliman M. Santos, Jr., for petitioners

SO ORDERED. [Rollo, p. 12-A.]

In consideration of my admission to the Mabini College and of my privileges as

xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx

9. I will not release false or unauthorized announcement which tend to cause

SO ORDERED. [Rollo pp. 15-16.]

You might also like