Anda di halaman 1dari 2

ALCUAZ vs.

PSBA

FACTS: Petitioners are all bona fide students of the Respondents, while respondents, are the
Philippine School of Business Administration (hereinafter referred to as PSBA) Quezon City. As
early as March 22, 1986, the students of the respondent school and the respondent PSBA, Q.C.
had already agreed on certain matters which would govern their activities within the school. In
spite of the above-stated agreement, petitioners felt the need to hold dialogues. Among others
they demanded the negotiation of a new agreement, which demand was turned down by the
school, resulting in mass assemblies and barricades of school entrances. “Subsequently dialogues
proved futile.”

Finally, petitioners received uniform letters from respondents giving them 3 days to explain why
the school should not take / mete out any administrative sanction on their direct participation
and/or conspiring with others in the commission of tumultuous and anarchic acts which was
answered by the counsel for the students in a reply letter.

During the regular enrollment period, petitioners and other students similarly situated were
allegedly blacklisted and denied admission for the second semester. President of the Student
Council filed a complaint with the Director of the MECS against the PSBA for barring the
enrollment of the Student Council Officers and student leaders. Simultaneously on the same date,
the student council wrote the President, Board of Trustees, requesting for a written statement
of the school’s decision regarding their enrollment. Another demand letter was made by Counsel
for the students Atty. Alan Romulo Yap, also to the President, Board of Trustees, to enroll his
clients within forty-eight (48) hours.

All these notwithstanding, no relief appeared to be forthcoming, hence this petition.


Respondents filed their manifestation and motion stating that pursuant to this court’s order the
school authorities created a special investigating committee to conduct an investigation, which
submitted a report with recommendations. Respondents adopted the recommendations of the
Committee and prayed that the case be dismissed for having become moot. In the resolution the
motion of petitioners to compel respondents to readmit or re-enroll herein petitioners was
denied except in the case of three (3) student petitioners cleared by the investigating committee
and who had been recommended to be readmitted or re-enrolled. The Court further resolved to
require respondent school to show cause why it should not be adjudged in contempt for refusing
to reinstate the intervenors-faculty members in the interim which the Respondents filed the
manifestation informing this Court that they did not refuse to reinstate the intervenors/faculty
members; that they were in fact actually reinstated in compliance with the Court’s temporary
mandatory order. Hence, the motion for contempt should be dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether there has been deprivation of due process for petitioners who have been barred
from re-enrollment and for intervenors teachers whose services have been terminated as faculty
members, on account of their participation in the demonstration or protest charged by
respondents as “anarchic” rallies, and a violation of their constitutional rights of expression and
assembly.

HELD: No. According to the minimum standards laid down by the Court to meet the demands of
procedural due process are:

(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against
them;

(2) 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.

First, both students and teachers were given three (3) days from receipts of letter to explain in
writing why the school should not take / mete out any administrative sanction on them in view
of their participation in the commission of tumultuous and anarchic acts on the dates stated.

Second, the records show that a letter was sent by Atty. Alan Rollo Yap, in behalf of all PSBA
students to the President of the School Mr. Juan D. Lim, explaining why said students are not
guilty of the charges filed against them. Similarly, a faculty member of the PSBA filed as answer
in a letter to the same President of the school, where he denied the charges against him.

Third to fifth was conducted in the investigation conducted by the committee. which after careful
scrutiny of the Report and Recommendation of the Special Investigating Committee shows it does
not fall under any of the above exceptions. On the contrary, it is readily apparent that the
investigation conducted was fair, open, exhaustive and adequate. Accordingly, there appears to
be no cogent reason to disturb the finding of said committee and as manifested by the
respondents, the report of said committee has virtually rendered this petition moot and
academic.