Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Issue: Whether the absence of notice to the dismissed students parents negates the compliance
of the requirements of administrative due process.
Held: Besides the administrative body undertaking a fair and objective investigation of the
incident, due process in administrative proceedings also requires consideration of the evidence
presented and the existence of evidence to support the decision. Herein, the original Court of
Appeals decision (penned by Justice Gancayco) showed that the procedures in the expulsion case
were fair, open, exhaustive, and adequate. There were nothing in the records to reverse the
findings in the reconsideration. Clearly, there was absolutely no indication of malice, fraud, and
improper or wilful motives or conduct on the part of the Ateneo de Manila University. Juan Ramon
was given notice of the proceedings. He actually appeared to present his side. The investigating
board acted fairly and objectively. All requisites of administrative due process were met. It cannot
be negated by the fact that the parents of Juan Ramon were not given any notice of the
proceedings. Juan Ramon, who at the time was 18 years of age, was already a college student,
intelligent and mature enough to know his responsibilities. He was fully cognizant of the gravity of
the offense he committed as he asked if he could be expelled for what he did. When informed about
the 19 December 1967 meeting of the Board of Discipline, he was asked to seek advice and
assistance from his guardian and or parents. The fact that he chose to remain silent and did not
inform them about his case, not even when he went home to Bacolod City for his Christmas
vacation, was not the fault of the University.