Ateneo De Manila University v. Capulong

G.R. No. 99327
May 27, 1993

Facts

During the initiation rites of the fraternity Aquila Legis, one student died while another one was hospitalized. This prompt petitioner Dean del Castillo to create a Joint Administration-Faculty-Student Investigating Committee to investigate the death of one of the student. Consequently, respondents were given notice by the Committee which requires them to submit written statements. Through their respective counsels, respondents requested copies of the charges. After receiving the written statements and hearing the testimonies of the witnesses, the Committee found a prima facie case against respondent students for violating Rule 3 of the Law School Catalogue.

The case was then brought to the Disciplinary Board who informed the students of the charges against them, specifically the participation in the acts of hazing. The same Board pronounced that the respondent students were guilty of hazing but left the imposition of penalty to the University Administration. Later on, the President of the University, Father Joaquin Bernas, impose the penalty of dismissal to all students involved. However, two students, Mendoza and Abas, were not included since they have not yet submitted their case.

Respondent students Mendoza and Abas filed with the RTC a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with prayer for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the ground that they were deprive of the right to due process on their dismissal. Respondent judge granted the petition. When the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) lapsed, Dean del Castillo created a Special Board to investigate the hazing incidents. Respondents answered by filing another supplemental petition which was granted by respondent judge and further ordered petitioners to reinstate students. At the same time, the Special Board investigating petitioners Abas and Mendoza imposed the penalty of dismissal to both of them. Thereafter, respondent judge issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon the respondent’s posting of a bond. Hence, this case.

Judge Madayag issued a temporary restraining order enjoining petitioners from dismissing respondent students and stopping the former from conducting hearings relative to the hazing incident.

Issue

Whether or not the respondent students were deprived of their right to due process when the school ordered their dismissal?

Held

No. In the case of Guzman v National University, the Court laid down the requirements of due process in the impositions of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions:

1. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;
2. that they shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if desired;
3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
5. the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case

In the case at bar, the following requirements are followed. The first requirement was followed since Dean del Castillo notified said respondents. The second requirement was satisfied through the petitioners’ notices dated February 14 and 20, 1991 which quote the charges against them. Moreover, the respondents were assisted by counsels.

The third requirement was also met notwithstanding the contention of the respondent that they were not given the opportunity to see and examine the written statements. This is so because the disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to cross examination. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students’ participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding.

The fourth requirement was also met since the Order was issued only after the submission of written statements and hearing the testimonies of several witnesses. Additionally, the fifth requirement was also met.

Hence, the respondent students were not deprived of their constitutional right to due process.