Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs.

Court of
Appeals
*
G.R. No. 112844. June 2, 1995.

PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC., represented by JUAN O. NOLASCO III,

petitioner,  vs.  COURT OF APPEALS, THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,
EDELMIRO AMANTE, RENATO CORONA, and the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondents.

Administrative Law; Due Process;  Assertion of petitioner that it was deprived of its right to a hearing
and any opportunity whatsoever to correct the alleged deficiencies readily collapses.—Set against the records
of the case, the assertion of petitioner that it was deprived of its right to a hearing and any opportunity
whatsoever to correct the alleged deficiencies readily collapses. The earlier narration of facts clearly
demonstrates that before the DECS issued the phase-out and closure orders, petitioner was duly notified,
warned and given several opportunities to correct its deficiencies and to comply with pertinent orders and
regulations.
Same; Same; Petitioner has no reason to complain of lack of opportunity to explain its side as well as to
comply with the alleged deficiencies.—Petitioner has gone all the way up to the Office of the President to
seek a reversal of the phase-out and closure orders. There is thus no reason to complain of lack of
opportunity to explain its side as well as to comply with the alleged deficiencies.
Same;  Evidence;  Findings of fact of administrative departments are generally accorded respect, if not
finality, by the courts.—By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative departments
over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon and their
findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts.

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Ponce Enrile, Cayetano, Reyes & Manalastas for petitioner.

_______________
* EN BANC.

771

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 771

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

BELLOSILLO, J.:

PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE SCHOOL, INC. (PMMSI), was established in Manila in

1950 to train and produce competent marine officers. It offers a two-year course in Marine
Engineering (A.M.E.) and a four-year course in Marine Transportation (B.S.M.T.). In 1978 it
established a branch in Talon, Las Piñas, Metro Manila. But we are here concerned only with the
main school in Manila.
 For several times prior to 1985 respondent Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) disapproved petitioner’s requests for renewal permit/recognition. However, on 11 March
1986 the DECS issued petitioner a renewal permit for SY 1985-1986. Later, petitioner applied for
a summer permit for 1986 which the DECS favorably indorsed to the Minister of Education in
consideration of the graduating students for summer. Thereafter the application was returned to
Director Modesta Boquiren of the DECS for evaluation and decision pursuant to the authority
delegated to the Regions under Department Order No. 22, series of 1975. Director Boquiren
issued petitioner the summer permit for 1986 based on the previously stated humanitarian
reason but subject to the condition that petitioner should not enroll students for the first
semester of SY 1986-1987 until a permit therefor was granted and that the enrollment list for the
summer term be submitted immediately.
Sometime in 1986 the DECS received a complaint from Felixberto B. Galvez, president of
petitioner’s Faculty Association, NAFLU-KMU, concerning the issuance of summer permit to
petitioner and of its holding of classes for courses not recognized by the Government. Galvez
requested that the matter be looked into as well as the possible revocation of petitioner’s
authority due to persistent violation of the orders of the DECS.
In response, the DECS through Director Boquiren recommended that petitioner’s summer
permit be revoked and that the school be closed effective SY 1986-1987 on the ground that: (a)
petitioner did not have a renewal permit/recognition for SY 1986-1987; (b) several
communications were sent to petitioner’s head telling him not to operate without permit and to
explain within seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of Director Boquiren’s letter
772

772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

dated 9 July 1986 why no drastic action should be taken against it but said communication was
never answered; and, (c) petitioner did not correct the deficiencies indicated in the renewal
permit for 1985-1986.
Accordingly, in a 3rd Indorsement dated 23 September 1986 the DECS through then Minister
Lourdes R. Quisumbing approved the following courses of action for petitioner: (a) the students in
the two courses who were graduating for SY 1986-1987 would be allowed to graduate even
without permit for said courses as a special case provided that they completed the requirements
for graduation and subject to prior issuance of Special Order; and, (b) the remaining students
should be allowed to transfer to other authorized schools.
In a letter dated 30 September 1986 Director Boquiren informed petitioner of the
aforementioned courses of action and directed immediate implementation thereof.
On 9 April 1987 the DECS Inter-Agency Technical Committee (IATCOM) recommended
renewal of permits for the maritime courses offered by petitioner provided that a development
plan for the improvement of its buildings, classrooms, laboratory rooms, library offices and other
rooms be formulated and implemented before the start of school year 1987-1988.
Despite lack of permit, petitioner continued to enroll students and offer courses in Marine
Engineering and Marine Transportation for SY 1987-1988. This prompted the DECS through
Director Hernando Dizon to write petitioner on 4 August 1988 directing it not 1
to operate without
permit and inviting its2 attention to the provisions of the Private School Law  as reiterated in the
Education Act of 1982  which prohibits operation of unauthorized schools/ courses.
On 28 October 1988 petitioner sent a letter to Director Dizon applying for permit/recognition to
conduct classes for the two (2) maritime courses retroactive from summer of 1987 up to SY 1988-
1989 and informing him of its transfer to the 5th Floor of the Republic Supermarket Building,
corner Rizal Avenue and Soler St., Sta. Cruz, Manila.

_______________
1 Act No. 2706 of 1917.
2 B.P. Blg. 232.

773

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 773

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

On the basis of the favorable report of a supervisor of the Bureau of Higher Education who visited
the premises of petitioner on 14 November 1988, a director of said Bureau recommended renewal
of petitioner’s permit. However, in a DECS-PAMI survey conducted by the DECS technical staff
in 1988, petitioner scored only 32 points out of a possible 1,026 points for requirements in
Nautical Engineering, and only 207 points out of 905 points in Marine Engineering, way below
the DECS requirements.
Subsequent inspection of petitioner’s premises by the Bureau of Higher Education-DECS
Technical Panel for Maritime Education (TPME) affirmed the findings of the DECS-PAMI
survey. It found petitioner deficient in terms of the minimum requirements as provided in DECS
Order No. III, series of 1987, which refers to the policies and standards for Maritime Education
Plan. In a memorandum dated 19 January 1989 addressed to DECS Director Nilo Rosas, it set
forth the following recommendations:

1. The PMMS administration may be given a last chance to put up at least 60% of the
minimum standard equipment for a period of about two months (January-March 1989).
2. The DECS with TPME will conduct a reinspection sometime the first week of April to
monitor the progress of the requirements.
3. No new and old students will be allowed to enroll during summer of 1989 and the
subsequent semesters pending issuance of a permit.
4. Therefore, issuance of a school permit for 1987-1988 to 1988-89 shall be held in abeyance
pending compliance of at least 60% of the requirements.
5. DECS higher authorities shall decide whether the graduating students for the second
semester 1988-89 will be allowed to graduate 3
and a retroactive school permit for the
school years 1987-88, 1988-89 can be granted.

As recommended, the TPME Secretariat conducted a reinspection of petitioner’s premises, then

submitted a report dated 18 April 1989 with the following new recommenda-tions—

_______________
3 Rollo, pp. 207-208.

774

774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

1. Gradual phasing out of the BSMT Nautical Studies and Associate in Marine Engineering
programs. Under this scheme, no new enrollees should be accepted anymore for the 1st
year BSMT Nautical Studies and AME starting 1st semester of school year 1989-90.
2. If the school can come up with the DECS minimum standard within the phasing out
period, suspension order may be lifted.
3. If the school fails to meet the DECS minimum standard at the end of the phasing out
period, closure order will be issued.
4. No special permit for the BSMT Nautical Studies and AME courses should be granted as
a special case. However, during the phasing out period students may be allowed to
graduate under PMMS, Talon, Las Piñas,

based on these considerations—

1. PMMS, Manila, has inadequate training facilities and equipment for BSMT Nautical
Studies and AME programs.
2. The school has not acquired its own school site and building. The present school campus is
not conducive for training and is found to be very limited in space so that there is
difficulty for school development and expansion.
3. On 23 September 1986, the Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports already issued a
cease to operate order to the school head of PMMS. The said indorsement letter also
provided humanitarian decision (reason?) which granted permit to PMMS as a special
case, just to allow BSMT and AME students to graduate and the remaining students were
advised to transfer to authorized/recognized schools.
4. Labor dispute occurred in 1987. The conflict
4
between the employees and employer is a
manifestation of mismanagement of school.

In a letter dated 27 April 1989 Director Rosas informed petitioner of the TPME report and
recommendations and invited it for a conference on 2 May 1989 before any major decision and
action would be made.
On 2 May 1989, the TPME Secretariat submitted another memorandum on its reinspection of
petitioner’s premises made on 28 April 1989. Based on its findings that no substantial
improvement in terms of minimum requirements, equipment and training facilities since the
January 1989 inspection was

_______________
4 Id., pp. 208-209.

775

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 775

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals
made, it reiterated the recommendations it submitted to the DECS Bureau of Higher Education.
For this reason, in the letter dated 25 May 1989 Director Rosas notified petitioner about the
aforementioned report and the DECS’ decision that:

1. The BSMT Nautical Studies and Associate in Marine Engineering courses be gradually
phased out. Such being the case, the school shall no longer be allowed to accept 1st year
students and new enrollees starting 1st semester of school year 1989-90.
2. The second year and third year students may be allowed to remain until they graduate.
However, the school may opt to transfer these students to PMMS, Talon, Las Piñas,

due to the following considerations:

1. The school’s training equipment and instructional facilities are very far below the
standards set by DECS.
2. The school site and building are not owned by the school but only leased with contract of
renewal to be made annually.
3. The present location of the school does not warrant for expansion, development and
improvement.
4. The present location of the school is not conducive for learning, it being located on the 5th
floor of a supermarket in the downtown section of the city.
5. A cease to operate order was issued by Secretary
5
Lourdes R. Quisumbing sometime in
1986, which order was violated by the school.

In a letter dated 11 July 1989 the DECS through Secretary Quisumbing informed petitioner that
it had received reports that petitioner enrolled freshmen for its maritime programs which were
ordered phased out effective SY 1989-1990 per letter of Director Rosas dated 25 May 1989; called
petitioner’s attention to the provision of Sec. 1, Rule 1, Part V, of the Implementing Rules of the
Education Act of 1982 which makes it punishable and subject to penalties the operation of a
school through the conduct or offering of Educational Programs or Courses of Studies/Training,
without prior government authorization and/or in violation of any of the terms and conditions of
said permit or recognition; directed that in accordance with the phase-out order, petitioner’s

_______________
5 Id., pp. 209-210.

776

776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

Manila campus is allowed to operate only the 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of the authorized maritime
programs which shall be gradually phased out; and, required petitioner to comment on the
reported unauthorized enrollment.
In its letter to the DECS dated 26 July 1989, petitioner moved for reconsideration stating that
the finding that it had not complied with the minimum requirements was due to the following:
that as early as 21 June 1989 it filed a letter requesting reconsideration of the letter dated 25
May 1989 of Director Rosas; that since there was no reply it believed that the 25 May 1989 order
was reconsidered sub-silencio and that petitioner was allowed to enroll 1st year students for SY
1989-1990; and, that it had undertaken improvements in all of its facilities in compliance with
DECS requirements. In this regard, it requested another inspection of its premises.
Pursuant to petitioner’s request, another inspection of the Manila premises was conducted by
the TPME-Secretariat on 8 August 1989. However, petitioner only obtained a general rating of
31.17% for Nautical Studies and 28.53% for Marine Engineering. Consequently, the inspection
team reiterated its previous recommendation to gradually phase out the maritime programs of
petitioner’s Manila campus effective SY 1990-1991 and that no new freshman students be
accepted beginning SY 1990-1991.
Accordingly, in a letter dated 25 September 1989 the DECS through Secretary Quisumbing
ordered petitioner to discontinue its Maritime Program in the Manila campus effective school
year 1990-1991 and suggested that efforts be made towards the development
6
of PMMS, Las
Piñas, which has a great potential of being a good Maritime School.   The phase-out order was
reiterated in subsequent letters dated 19 February 1990 and 9 May 1990 of Director Rosas and
then DECS Secretary Isidro D. Cariño, respectively.
Subsequently, petitioner moved to reconsider the phase-out order in its letter of 21 May 1990,
which request was denied by the DECS through Undersecretary Benjamin Tayabas in his letter
of 1 June 1990. The letter reads—

_______________
6 Id., p. 211.

777

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 777

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

With reference to your request to rescind an order to phase-out the maritime courses at PMMS, Manila,
please be informed that this Department sees no reason for such action as the conditions obtaining in the
school when the phase-out order was issued haven’t shown any significant improvement inspite of the fact
that the PMMS had been given reasonable period to comply with the minimum standard requirements
prescribed by the Department of Education, Culture and Sports.
Maritime Education courses are highly specialized and require adequate training facilities and
equipment in order to ensure quality. However, the series of visits made by the staff of the BHE, NCR, and
members of the Technical Panel on Maritime Education revealed the following findings:

(a) On April 9, 1987 the Inter-Agency Technical Committee (IATCOM) recommended the renewal of permits of the
maritime courses, provided, that a development plan for the improvement of the buildings, classrooms,
laboratory rooms, library offices and other rooms shall be formulated and implemented before the start of SY
1987-1988.
(b) In 1988, the DECS-PAMI survey conducted by technical persons, revealed that PMMS, then located at the 5th
floor of the Republic Supermarket, obtained a general score of 32 out of 1,026 points for requirements in the
Nautical course and 207 out of 905 points for the Marine Engineering course. It is needless to say that these
findings are way below the DECS requirements. Above all, the school site was described as not conducive for
offering maritime program due to its limited area. Furthermore, the lease on the premises is not a long term
lease (2 years), a condition which would deter the school from fully developing the school site.
(c) In January of 1989, the findings of the Secretariat for the Technical Panel for Maritime Education (TPME)
reaffirmed the findings of the DECS-PAMI Survey. Very few equipment were found for the Maritime courses.
You concurred with these findings in a dialogue with the Director of the Bureau of Higher Education Secretariat.
You appealed for another chance and requested for re-inspection before the opening of SY 1989-1990.
 (d) As per agreement, on April 28, 1989 another re-inspection was made and it showed that the school did not show
any substantial improvement.

Then on May 25, 1989, Secretary Lourdes Quisumbing issued the phase-out order of your maritime programs in Manila
campus.
However, the Department again allowed PMMS, Manila, to operate the maritime courses for SY 1989-1990 despite
the

778

778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

above phase-out order.

(e) Another evaluation of your school was conducted by technical people on August 8, 1989, as requested. The
findings revealed that your school obtained a general rating of 31.17% for Nautical Studies and 28.53% for
Marine Engineering.

The PMMS has been provided with the Policies and Standards for Maritime Education and, as revealed
by the foregoing facts, the series of inspection and evaluation were (sic) done by technical persons who have
expertise in the field of maritime education. Therefore, the requests relative to these are not valid.
It is therefore with regrets that this Department cannot re-scind its order to phase-out the Maritime
courses at PMMS, Manila and the school is admonished not to accept incoming first year students starting
school year 1990-1991. So that by school year 1992-1993, the maritime courses at the Manila campus would
be fully phased-out xxxx7
It is suggested that PMMS concentrate its development plans in the Las Piñas Campus which has a great
potential of being a good maritime school.

Not satisfied therewith, petitioner appealed the matter to respondent Office of the President.
During the pendency of the appeal the DECS thru Secretary Cariño issued a Closure Order dated
27 August 1991—
In view of the report which was confirmed by the evaluation team from the National Capital Region DECS
Regional Office, that Philip-pine Merchant Marine School (PMMS), Manila, has been accepting freshman
students of the maritime programs despite the phase-out order which was issued last September 28, (sic)
1989 by former Secretary Lourdes R. Quisumbing and further reiterated by the undersigned, dated May 9,
1990,  the Department, hereby orders Closure of your maritime programs of your school effective second
semester school year 1991-1992, otherwise this Department shall be constrained to institute the appropriate
administrative, civil and criminal proceedings against you and the other responsible officers of your school
pursuant to Section 68, Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 x x x x
The transfer of the affected students shall be facilitated by the National Capital Region in accordance
with our Memorandum dated August 16, 1991, xerox copy of which is hereto attached for your

_______________
7 Id., pp. 212-214.

779

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 779

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals
information. 8
For your guidance and strict compliance.

In a letter dated 24 August 1992 petitioner sought reconsideration of the 27 August 1991 Closure
Order and at the same time requested that special orders be issued to its graduates for SY 1991-
1992. In letters filed with the Office of the President dated 2 and 3 October 1992 petitioner
alleged compliance with DECS requirements. The letters were referred to the DECS for
consideration.
On 10 November 1992 the Office of the President through respondent 9
Executive Secretary
Edelmiro Amante rendered a Resolution dismissing petitioner’s appeal.   It found no plausible
reason to disturb the action of the DECS Secretary in the light of the conspicuous fact that
petitioner had repeatedly failed to comply with the phase-out order since 1986. Moreover, the
grounds advanced by petitioner have already been passed upon by the DECS.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration praying that the case be remanded to the DECS for
another ocular inspection and evaluation of its alleged improved facilities. Petitioner anchored its
motion on the proposition that since it had made substantial improvements on school equipment
and facilities there existed no valid ground to deny them a permit to offer maritime courses. After
another circumspect review of the case, the Office of the President found no cogent reason to set
aside its previous resolution. It opined that—
Mere alleged efforts to improve the facilities and equipments (sic) which were long due since 1986, do not
warrant the reversal of our previous resolution. It bears stressing as the records may show, that the phase-
out order of DECS was based not only on PMMSI’s failure to provide adequate equipment and facilities but
also on PMMSI’s failure to comply with the standard requirements prescribed for a school site.
xxxx
Apart from these, PMMSI’s adamant refusal to comply with the orders of the DECS to phase out its
unauthorized courses is sufficient

_______________
8 Id., p. 215.
9 Id., p. 73.

780

780 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

ground to uphold the order appealed from. Since 1986, PMMSI has been applying for a permit to offer
maritime courses but has been invariably denied for failure to comply with the minimum requirements
prescribed by DECS. Notwithstanding these denials, PMMSI continues to offer maritime courses and to
admit freshmen students in clear violation of Section 1, Rule 1, of the Education Act of 1982 x x x x
xxxx
PMMSI’s refusal to comply with the phase-out order on the ground that the same is not yet final and
executory is untenable. While said phase-out may not be final and executory, there was no reason for
PMMSI to offer maritime courses without the requisite prior authority of the DECS. 10PMMSI possessed no
valid permit prior to the issuance of the phase-out. There was no authority to speak of.

Thus the motion was denied in the Resolution 11

dated 12 January 1993 through respondent
Assistant Executive Secretary Renato Corona.
Petitioner assailed both resolutions of the Office of the President before respondent Court of
Appeals by way of certiorari. It alleged that the resolutions failed to meet the constitutional
requirement of due process because the basis for affirming the DECS phase-out and closure
orders was not sufficiently disclosed. Furthermore, its letters dated 2 and 3 October 1992 which
presented incontrovertible proof that it had introduced substantial improvements on its facilities
for the past two and a half years while its appeal was pending were not taken into account,
thereby gravely abusing its discretion.
Respondent Court of Appeals brushed aside the allegations of petitioner since—
[T]he Office of the President, in the resolution dated November 10, 1992, appears to have restated the report
of the respondent DECS, meaning, that it adopted as its own the DECS’ report, but that is not a violation of
the Constitution and the Rules of Court, in line with  Alba Patio De Makati vs. Alba Patio De Makati
Employees Association, 128 SCRA 253, 264-265 x x x x Petitioner’s latest attempt at improving its facilities
does not warrant a reversal of the phase-out order. For, in spite of the claim that it spent on improvements,
the basic problem

_______________
10 Id., pp. 74-76.
11 Id., p. 76.

781

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 781

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

remained as it still occupies the fifth floor of the William

12
Liao building, which is not conducive to learning,
and has a limited area for expansion and development.
13
On 22 July 1993 the petition 14
was dismissed.   On 26 November 1993 the motion for
reconsideration was denied.
Petitioner imputes error on respondent court: (1) in not setting aside the questioned
resolutions and orders of public respondents which were rendered without due process of law
since (a) petitioner was not afforded the right to fully present its case and submit evidence in
support thereof; (b) public respondents did not consider the evidence presented by petitioner; (c)
public respon-dents’ decisions have no substantial evidence to support them; (d) public
respondents’ decisions did not disclose the bases therefor; and, (2) in implementing the closure
orders which had not become final and executory.
Petitioner asseverates that the DECS denied its right to a hearing on the supposed deficiencies
which allegedly justified denial of its request for issuance of a renewal permit. Likewise, the
DECS denied petitioner the opportunity to correct such deficiencies. The Office of the President
totally ignored supervening events properly brought to its attention in the letters of petitioner
dated 2 and 3 October 1992. It issued resolutions strictly on the basis of the DECS’
representations which do not amount to substantial evidence. The 10 November 1992 Resolution
failed to sufficiently disclose the basis for affirmation of the DECS’ phaseout and closure orders.
The 12 January 1993 Resolution still refused to take into consideration petitioner’s compliance
with the DECS’ requirements. Petitioner did not violate the Education Act of 1992 because it was
authorized to operate by virtue of the provisional authorities issued by the DECS. The DECS
orders were not final and executory because petitioner challenged them and appropriately availed
itself of the remedies available to it under the law.
Before proceeding to resolve the merits of this case, we shall state briefly the concept
regarding establishment of schools. The

______________
 12 Id., pp. 218-219.
13 Id., p. 227.
14 Id., p. 231.

782

782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

educational operation of schools is subject to prior authorization of the government and is effected
by recognition. In the case of government-operated schools, whether local, regional or national,
recognition of educational programs and/or operations is deemed granted simultaneously with
establishment. In all other cases the rules and regulations governing recognition are prescribed
and enforced by the DECS, defining therein who are qualified to apply, providing for a permit
system, stating the conditions for the grant of15 recognition and for its cancellation and
withdrawal, and providing for related matters.   The requirement on prior government
authorization is pursuant to the State policy that educational programs and/or operations shall
be of good quality and therefore shall at least satisfy minimum standards with respect to
curricula,16 teaching staff, physical plant and facilities and of administrative or management
viability.
Set against the records of the case, the assertion of petitioner that it was deprived of its right
to a hearing and any opportunity whatsoever to correct the alleged deficiencies readily collapses.
The earlier narration of facts clearly demonstrates that before the DECS issued the phase-out
and closure orders, petitioner was duly notified, warned and given several opportunities to
correct its deficiencies and to comply with pertinent orders and regulations.
Petitioner has gone all the way up to the Office of the President to seek a reversal of the phase-
out and closure orders. There is thus no reason to complain17
of lack of opportunity to explain its
side as well as to comply with the alleged deficiencies.   We agree with the observation of the
Office of the Solicitor General that—
As long as the parties were given opportunity to be heard before judgment was rendered, the demands of
due process were sufficiently met (Lindo v. COMELEC,  194 SCRA 25). It should also be noted that
petitioner herein repeatedly sought reconsideration of the various orders of respondent DECS and its
motions were duly considered by respondent DECS to the extent of allowing and granting its request for

_______________
15 Sec.27, Education Act of 1982.
16 Sec.5, Rule III, Rules Implementing the Education Act of 1982.
17 See Board of Medical Education v. Alfonso, G.R. No. 88259, 10 August 1989, 176 SCRA 304.

783

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 783

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

re-inspection of its premises. In connection therewith, it has been ruled that the opportunity to be heard is
the essence of procedural due process and that any defect is cured 18
by the filing of a motion for
reconsideration (Medenilla v. Civil Service Commission, 194 SCRA 278).
Furthermore, the Office of the President properly ignored (in the sense that it did not find worthy
of consideration) the alleged supervening events, i.e., substantial improvements on school
equipment and facilities during the pendency of the case before said Office because the
improvements should have been undertaken starting 1986. Moreover, the phase-out and closure
orders were based not only on petitioner’s deficiencies as a maritime institute but also on its
continued operation without the requisite authorization from the DECS and acceptance of
freshman students in blatant violation of the latter’s orders and/or persistent warnings not to do
so. Verily, there are sufficient grounds to uphold the phase-out and closure orders of the DECS
which were issued conformably with Sec. 28 of the Education Act of 1982 which provides:
Sec. 28. x x x x  Punishable Violations.—x x x x Operation of schools and educational programs without
authorization, and/or operation thereof in violation of the terms of recognition, are hereby declared
punishable violations subject to the penalties provided in this Act. Secs. 68 and 69 of the same Act provide
the penalties:
Sec. 68.  Penalty Clause.—Any person upon conviction for an act in violation of Section 28, Chapter 3,
Title III, shall be punished with a fine of not less than two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) nor more than ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) or imprisonment for a maximum period of two (2) years, or both, in the
discretion of the court. If the act is committed by a school corporation, the school head together with the
person or persons responsible for the offense or violation shall be equally liable.
Sec. 69.  Administrative Sanction.—The Minister (Secretary) of Education, Culture and Sports may
prescribe and impose such administrative sanction as he may deem reasonable and appropriate in the
implementing rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to this Act for any of the following causes x x x x
5. Unauthorized operation of a school, or course, or any component thereof x x x x

_______________
18 Rollo, p. 424.

784

784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

The corresponding rules implementing Secs. 68 and 69 read—

Sec. 1.—Punishable Acts and Penalties.—The operation of a school, through the conduct or offering of
educational programs or courses of studies/training without prior government authorization in the form of
permit or recognition as provided for in Rule III, PART III of these Rules, and/or in violation of any of the
terms and conditions of the said permit or recognition, have been declared punishable violations of the Act,
subject to the penalties provided therein.
Any person, therefore, upon conviction for an act constituting any of the foregoing punishable violations,
shall be punished with a fine of not less than Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) nor more than Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00), or imprisonment for a maximum period of two (2) years, or both, in the discretion of the
Court: Provided, however, that when the act is committed by a school corporation, the school head together
with the person or persons responsible for the violation or offense shall be deemed equally liable.
Sec. 2.—Administrative Sanction.—Without prejudice to the interest of students, teachers and employees,
and independently of the penalty imposed in Sec. 1 under this Rule, the Minister may withdraw, suspend,
revoke or cancel a school’s authority to operate as an educational institution or to conduct educational
programs or courses of studies/training, for any of the following causes, viz: x x x x e. Unauthorized
operation of a school, or program or course of studies or component thereof, or any violation of the prescribed
rules governing advertisements or announcements of educational institutions.
Substantial evidence has been defined to be 19
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion.  A perusal of the questioned resolutions of the Office
of the President reveals that they are based on the records of the case which constitute
substantial evidence, proving distinctly not only petitioner’s consistent failure to meet the DECS’
minimum standards for maritime institutes and correct its deficiencies but also its continued
operation and offering of maritime courses despite the lack of permit.
Contrary to the claim of petitioner, the 10 November 1992 Resolution of the Office of the
President sufficiently disclosed the

_______________
19 Velasquez v. Nery, G.R. No. 64284, 3 July 1992, 211 SCRA 28.

785

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 785

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

basis for its affirmance of the DECS’ phase-out and closure orders:
After a careful study, we are constrained to resolve that there exists no sufficient justification to modify,
alter or reverse the appealed order. We find no plausible reason to disturb the action of the Secretary of
Education, Culture and Sports, more so in light of the conspicuous fact that PMMS has repeatedly failed to
comply with the phase out order since 1986. What is more, the 20
grounds advanced by PMMS have already
been passed upon, and separately resolved by the office a quo.

Petitioner’s persistent refusal to comply with the phase-out orders on the ground that the same
were not yet final and executory is untenable. As correctly held by the Office of the President—
x x x x While said phase-out (orders) may not be final and executory, there was no reason for PMMSI to offer
maritime courses without the requisite prior authority of the DECS.21PMMSI possessed no valid permit prior
to the issuance of the phase-out. There was no authority to speak of.

By reason of the special knowledge and expertise of administrative departments over matters
falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position to pass judgment thereon and their
findings of fact in that regard are generally accorded respect, if not finality, by the courts. In the
case at bench, it is not the function of this Court nor any other court for that matter—
x x x to review the decisions and orders of the Secretary on the issue of whether or not an educational
institution meets the norms and standards required for permission to operate and to continue operating as
such. On this question, no Court has the power or prerogative to substitute its opinion for that of the
Secretary. Indeed, it is obviously not expected that any Court would have the competence to do so.
The only authority reposed in the Courts on the matter is the determination of whether or not the
Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports has acted within the scope of powers granted him by law

_______________
20 Rollo, p. 72.
21 Rollo, p. 76.

786

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Philippine Merchant Marine School, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals

and the Constitution. As long as it appears that he has done so, any decision rendered by him should not
and will not be subject to review and reversal by any court.
Of course, if it should be made to appear to the Court that those powers were in a case exercised so
whimsically, capriciously, oppressively, despotically or arbitrarily as to call for peremptory correction—or
stated otherwise, that the Secretary had acted with grave abuse of discretion, or had unlawfully neglected
the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty, or excluded another from the use or
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled—it becomes the Court’s duty to rectify such
action through the extraordinary remedies of certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus, whichever may properly
apply. Yet even in these extreme instances, where a Court finds that there has been abuse of powers by the
Secretary and consequently nullifies and/or forbids such an abuse of power, or commands whatever is
needful to keep its exercise within bounds, the Court, absent any compelling reason to do otherwise, should
still leave to the Secretary the ultimate determination of the issue of the satisfaction of fulfillment by an
educational institution of the standards set down for its legitimate
22
operation, as to which it should not
ordinarily substitute its own judgment for that of said office.

There being no grave abuse of discretion committed by respondents representing the Office of the
President in issuing the Resolutions of 10 November 1992 and 12 January 1993, respondent
Court of Appeals did not err in sustaining the resolutions in question.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The questioned Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated 22 July 1993, as well as its Resolution of 26 November 1993, is AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

          Narvasa  (C.J.),  Feliciano,  Padilla,  Regalado,  Davide,

Jr., Romero, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.
     Quiason, J., On official leave.

Petition denied. Judgment affirmed.

_______________
22 See Note 15.

787

VOL. 244, JUNE 2, 1995 787

Vinzons-Chato vs. Natividad

Note.—Factual finding of quasi-judicial tribunals will not be examined by Supreme Court.

(Zagada vs. Civil Service Commission, 222 SCRA 681 [1993])

——o0o——