Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC

G.R. No. L-40779 November 28, 1975
EPIC!RIS T. G!RCI!, petitioner,
vs.
TE "!CULT# !$MISSION COMMITTEE, LO#OL! SCOOL O" TEOLOG#,
%ere&' re(re)e'*e+ b, "R. !NTONIO -. L!M-INO, respondent.
Epicharis T Garcia in her own behalf.
Bengzon, Villegas, Zarraga, Narciso and Cudala for respondents.

"ERN!N$O, J.:
The specific issue posed by this mandamus proceeding to copel the !aculty
Adission Coittee of the "oyola #chool of Theology, represented by !ather
Antonio B. "abino, to allo$ petitioner Epicharis T. %arcia, to continue studying
therein is $hether she is deeed possessed of such a right that has to be respected.
That is denied not only on general principle, but also in vie$ of the character of the
particular educational institution involved. &t is a seinary. &t $ould appear therefore
that at ost she can lay clai to a privilege, no duty being cast on respondent
school. Moreover, as a reinforceent to such an obvious conclusion, there is the
autonoy recogni'ed by the Constitution in this e(plicit language) *All institutions of
higher learning shall en+oy acadeic freedo.*
1
The petition ust therefore fail.
Petitioner alleged) *,. That in suer, -./0, Respondent aditted Petitioner for
studies leading to an M.A. in Theology1 2. That on May ,3, -./0, $hen Petitioner
$anted to enroll for the sae course for the first seester, -./04/5, Respondent told
her about the letter he had $ritten her, inforing her of the faculty6s decision to bar
her fro re4adission in their school1 0. That the reasons stated in said letter, dated
May -., -./0 ... do not constitute valid legal ground for e(pulsion, for they neither
present any violation of any of the school6s regulation, nor are they indicative of gross
isconduct1 5. That fro 7une 80, -./0, Petitioner spent uch tie and effort in said
school for the purpose of arriving at a coproise that $ould not duly inconvenience
the professors and still allo$ her to en+oy the benefits of the 9ind of instruction that
the school has to offer, but all in vain1 she $as in fact told by !r. Pedro #evilla, the
school6s :irector, that the coproises she $as offering $ere unacceptable, their
decision $as final, and that it $ere better for her to see9 for adission at the ;#T
%raduate #chool1 / Petitioner then subse<uently ade in<uiries in said school, as to
the possibilities for her pursuing her graduate studies for an for M.A. in Theology, and
she $as infored that she could enroll at the ;#T Ecclesiastical !aculties, but that
she $ould have to fulfill their re<uireents for Baccalaureate in Philosophy in order
to have her degree later in Theology = $hich $ould entail about four to five years
ore of studies = $hereas in the "oyola #chool of #tudies to $hich she is being
unla$fully refused readission, it $ould entail only about t$o years ore1 >. That
Petitioner, considering that tie $as of the essence in her case, and not $anting to
be deprived of an opportunity for gaining 9no$ledge necessary for her life6s $or9,
enrolled as a special student at said ;#T Ecclesiastical !aculties, even if she $ould
not thereby be credited $ith any acadeic units for the sub+ect she $ould ta9e1 ..
That Petitioner could have recourse neither to the President of her school, !r. 7ose
Cru', he being $ith the !irst Couple6s entourage no$ in Red China, nor $ith the
#ecretary of Education, since this is his busiest tie of the year, and 7une --, -./0 is
the last day for registration1 ... *
2
#he prayed for a $rit of andaus for the purpose
of allo$ing her to enroll in the current seester. #he ade it ore specific in a
pleading she called Aended Petition so that she $ould be allo$ed cross4enrollent
even beyond the 7une --, -./0 deadline for registration and that $hatever units ay
be accredited to her in the ;#T Ecclesiastical !aculties be li9e$ise recogni'ed by
respondent. ?er petition included the letter of respondent !ather "abino $hich
started on a happy note that she $as given the grade of B@ and B in t$o theology
sub+ects, but ended in a anner far fro satisfactory for her, as sho$n by this portion
thereof) *No$, you $ill have to forgive e for going into a atter $hich is not too
pleasant. The faculty had a eeting after the suer session and several ebers
are strongly opposed to having you bac9 $ith us at "oyola #chool of Theology. &n the
spirit of honesty ay & report this to you as their reason) They felt that your fre<uent
<uestions and difficulties $ere not al$ays pertinent and had the effect of slo$ing
do$n the progress of the class1 they felt you could have tried to give the presentation
a chance and e(erted ore effort to understand the point ade before iediately
thin9ing of difficulties and probles. The $ay things are, & $ould say that the
advisability of your copleting a progra A$ith all the course $or9 and thesis $ritingB
$ith us is very <uestionable. That you have the re<uisite intellectual ability is not to
be doubted. But it $ould see to be in your best interests to $or9 $ith a faculty that
is ore copatible $ith your orientation. & regret to have to a9e this report, but & a
only thin9ing of your $elfare.*
.
This Court, in a resolution of 7une 8,, -./0, re<uired coent on the part of
respondent !aculty Adission Coittee, "oyola #chool of Theology.
4
As subitted
on behalf of !ather "abino, it set forth the follo$ing) *Respondent is the Chairan
of the !aculty Adission Coittee of the "oyola #chool of Theology, $hich is a
religious seinary situated in "oyola ?eights, Cue'on City1 &n collaboration $ith the
Ateneo de Manila ;niversity, the "oyola #chool of Theology allo$s soe lay
students to attend its classes andDor ta9e courses in said "oyola #chool of Theology
but the degree, if any, to be obtained fro such courses is granted by the Ateneo de
Manila ;niversity and not by the "oyola #chool of Theology1 !or the reason above
given, lay students aditted to the "oyola #chool of Theology to ta9e up courses for
1
credit therein have to be officially aditted by the Assistant :ean of the %raduate
#chool of the Ateneo de Manila ;niversityin order for them to be considered as
admitted to a degree program1 Petitioner in the suer of -./0 $as aditted by
respondent to ta9e soe courses for credit but said adission $as not an adission
to a degree progra because only the Assistant :ean of the Ateneo de Manila
%raduate #chool can a9e such adission1 That in the case of petitioner, no
acceptance by the Assistant :ean of the Ateneo de Manila %raduate #chool $as
given, so that she $as not accepted to a degree progra but $as erely allo$ed to
ta9e soe courses for credit during the suer of -./01 !urtherore, petitioner $as
not charged a single centavo by the "oyola #chool of Theology andDor the Ateneo de
Manila ;niversity in connection $ith the courses she too9 in the suer of -./0, as
she $as allo$ed to ta9e it free of charge1 That respondent !r. Antonio B. "abino,
#.7., andDor the "oyola #chool of Theology thru its !aculty Adission Coittee,
necessarily has discretion as to $hether to adit andDor to continue aditting in the
said school any particular student, considering not only acadeic or intellectual
standards but also other considerations such as personality traits and character
orientation in relation $ith other students as $ell as considering the nature of "oyola
#chool of Theology as a seinary. The Petition for andamus therefore does not lie,
as there is no duty, uch less a clear duty, on the part of respondent to adit the
petitioner therein in the current year to ta9e up further courses in the "oyola #chool
of Theology.*
5
&t $as li9e$ise alleged in the aforesaid coent that as set forth in
the letter of May -., -./0, the decision not to allo$ petitioner to ta9e up further
courses in said seinary *is not arbitrary, as it is based on reasonable
grounds, ... .*
/
Then reference $as ade to the availability of non4+udicial reedies
$hich petitioner could have pursued.
7
The prayer $as for the disissal of the petition
for lac9 of erit. Petitioner sought perission to reply and it $as granted. Thereafter,
she had a detailed recital of $hy under the circustances she is entitled to relief fro
the courts. &n a resolution of August >, -./0, this Court considered the coent of
respondent as ans$er and re<uired the parties to file their respective eoranda.
That they did, and the petition $as deeed subitted for decision. As $as ade
clear at the outset, $e do not see erit in it. &t ust therefore be disissed.
-. &n respondent6s eorandu, it $as ade clear $hy a petition for andaus is
not the proper reedy. Thus) *Petitioner cannot copel by andaus, the
respondent to adit her into further studies in the "oyola #chool of Theology. !or
respondent has no clear dut! to so adit the petitioner. The "oyola #chool of
Theology is a seinary for the priesthood. Petitioner is adittedly and obviously not
studying for the priesthood, she being a lay person and a $oan. And even
assuing e" gratia argumenti that she is <ualified to study for the priesthood, there is
still no duty on the part of respondent to adit her to said studies, since the school
has clearly the discretion to turn do$n even <ualified applicants due to liitations of
space, facilities, professors and optiu classroo si'e and coponent
considerations.*
8
No authorities $ere cited, respondent apparently being of the vie$
that the la$ has not reached the stage $here the atter of adission to an institution
of higher learning rests on the sole and uncontrolled discretion of the applicant.
There are standards that ust be et. There are policies to be pursued. :iscretion
appears to be of the essence. &n ters of ?ohfeld6s terinology, $hat a student in
the position of petitioner possesses is a privilege rather than a right. #he cannot
therefore satisfy the prie and indispensable re<uisite of a andaus proceeding.
#uch being the case, there is no duty iposed on the "oyola #chool of Theology. &n
a rather coprehensive eorandu of petitioner, $ho unfortunately did not have
counsel, an attept $as ade to dispute the contention of respondent. There $as a
labored effort to sustain her stand, but it $as not sufficiently persuasive. &t is
understandable $hy. &t $as the s9ill of a lay person rather than a practitioner that $as
evident. Ehile she pressed her points $ith vigor, she $as unable to deonstrate the
e(istence of the clear legal right that ust e(ist to +ustify the grant of this $rit.
8. Nor is this all. There is, as previously noted, the recognition in the Constitution of
institutions of higher learning en+oying acadeic freedo. &t is ore often identified
$ith the right of a faculty eber to pursue his studies in his particular specialty and
thereafter to a9e 9no$n or publish the result of his endeavors $ithout fear that
retribution $ould be visited on hi in the event that his conclusions are found
distasteful or ob+ectionable to the po$ers that be, $hether in the political, econoic,
or acadeic establishents. !or the sociologist, Robert Mc&ver it is *a right claied
by the accredited educator, as teacher and as investigator, to interpret his findings
and to counicate his conclusions $ithout being sub+ected to any interference,
olestation, or penali'ation because these conclusions are unacceptable to soe
constituted authority $ithin or beyond the institution.* 9 As for the educator and
philosopher #idney ?oo9, this is his version) *Ehat is acadeic freedoF Briefly put,
it is the freedo of professionally <ualified persons to in<uire, discover, publish and
teach the truth as they see it in the field of their copetence. &t is sub+ect to no
control or authority e(cept the control or authority of the rational ethods by $hich
truths or conclusions are sought and established in these disciplines.*
10
,. That is only one aspect though. #uch a vie$ does not coprehend fully the scope
of acadeic freedo recogni'ed by the Constitution. !or it is to be noted that the
reference is to the *institutions of higher learning* as the recipients of this boon. &t
$ould follo$ then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right. &t
decides for itself its ais and ob+ectives and ho$ best to attain the. &t is free fro
outside coercion or interference save possibly $hen the overriding public $elfare
calls for soe restraint. &t has a $ide sphere of autonoy certainly e(tending to the
choice of students. This constitutional provision is not to be construed in a niggardly
anner or in a gradging fashion. That $ould be to frustrate its purpose, nullify its
intent. !orer President Gicente %. #inco of the ;niversity of the Philippines, in his
Philippine Political "a$, is siilarly of the vie$ that it *definitely grants the right of
acadeic freedo to the university as an institution as distinguished fro the
acadeic freedo of a university professor.*
11
?e cited the follo$ing fro :r. Marcel
Bouchard, Rector of the ;niversity of :i+on, !rance, President of the conference of
rectors and vice4chancellors of European universities) * *&t is a $ell4established fact,
and yet one $hich soeties tends to be obscured in discussions of the probles of
freedo, that the collective liberty of an organi'ation is by no eans the sae thing
as the freedo of the individual ebers $ithin it1 in fact, the t$o 9inds of freedo
are not even necessarily connected. &n considering the probles of acadeic
freedo one ust distinguish, therefore, bet$een the autonoy of the university, as
a corporate body, and the freedo of the individual university teacher.* *
12
Also) *To
clarify further the distinction bet$een the freedo of the university and that of the
2
individual scholar, he says) *The personal aspect of freedo consists in the right of
each university teacher = recogni'ed and effectively guaranteed by society = to
see9 and e(press the truth as he personally sees it, both in his acadeic $or9 and in
his capacity as a private citi'en. Thus the status of the individual university teacher is
at least as iportant, in considering acadeic freedo, as the status of the
institutions to $hich they belong and through $hich they disseinate their
learning.*6
1.
?e li9e$ise <uoted fro the President of the Cueen6s ;niversity in
Belfast, #ir Eric Ashby) *6The internal conditions for acadeic freedo in a university
are that the acadeic staff should have de facto control of the follo$ing functions) AiB
the adission and e(aination of students1 AiiB the curricula for courses of study1 AiiiB
the appointent and tenure of office of acadeic staff1 and AivB the allocation of
incoe aong the different categories of e(penditure. &t $ould be a poor prospect for
acadeic freedo if universities had to rely on the literal interpretation of their
constitutions in order to ac<uire for their acadeic ebers control of these four
functions, for in one constitution or another ost of these functions are laid on the
shoulders of the la$ governing body .6*
14
7ustice !ran9furter, $ith his e(tensive
bac9ground in legal education as a forer Professor of the ?arvard "a$ #chool,
referred to $hat he called the business of a university and the four essential
freedos in the follo$ing language) *&t is the business of a university to provide that
atosphere $hich is ost conducive to speculation, e(perient and creation. &t is an
atosphere in $hich there prevail *the four essential freedos* of a university = to
deterine for itself on acadeic grounds $ho ay teach, $hat ay be taught, ho$ it
shall be taught, and $ho ay be aditted to study.*
15
Thus is reinforced the
conclusion reached by us that mandamus does not lie in this case.
2. &t is not an easy atter then to disregard the vie$s of persons 9no$ledgeable in
the field, to $ho cannot be iputed lac9 of a$areness of the need to respect
freedo of thought on the part of students and scholars. Moreover, it could aount
to inii'ing the full respect that ust be accorded the acadeic freedo e(pressly
granted by the Constitution *to institutions of higher learning.* &t is e<ually difficult to
yield confority to the approach ta9en that colleges and universities should be
loo9ed upon as public utilities devoid of any discretion as to $ho to adit or re+ect.
Education, especially higher education, belongs to a different, and certainly higher,
category.
0. &t only reains to be added that the futility that ar9ed the persistence of
petitioner to continue her studies in the "oyola #chool of Theology is the result solely
of a legal appraisal of the situation before us. The decision is not to be construed as
in any $ay reflecting on the scholastic standing of petitioner. There $as on the part of
respondent due ac9no$ledgent of her intelligence. Nonetheless, for reasons
e(plained in the letter of !ather "abino, it $as deeed best, considering the
interest of the school as $ell as of the other students and her o$n $elfare, that she
continue her graduate $or9 else$here. There $as nothing arbitrary in such appraisal
of the circustances deeed relevant. &t could be that on ore ature reflection,
even petitioner $ould reali'e that her transfer to soe other institution $ould
redound to the benefit of all concerned. At any rate, as indicated earlier, only the
legal aspect of the controversy $as touched upon in this decision.
E?ERE!HRE, the petition is disissed for lac9 of erit.
3