Miriam College Foundation, Inc.

v CA 348 SCRA 265 December 15, 2000

Facts: The members of the editorial board of the Miriam College Foundation’s school paper were
subjected to disciplinary sanction by the College Discipline Committee after letters of complaint
were filed before the Board following the publication of the school paper that contains obscene,
vulgar, and sexually explicit contents. Prior to the disciplinary sanction to the defendants they
were required to submit a written statement to answer the complaints against them to the
Discipline Committee but the defendants, instead of doing so wrote to the Committee to transfer
the case to the DECS which they alleged to have the jurisdiction over the issue. Pushing through
with the investigation ex parte the Committee found the defendants guilty and imposed upon
them disciplinary sanctions. Defendants filed before the court for prohibition with preliminary
injunction on said decision of the Committee questioning the jurisdiction of said Discipline
Board over the defendants.

Issue: WON the Discipline Board of Miriam College has jurisdiction over the defendants.

Held: The court resolved the issue before it by looking through the power of DECS and the
Disciplinary Committee in imposing sanctions upon the defendants. Section 5 (2), Article XIV of
the Constitution guarantees all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. This
institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its
aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save
possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. Such duty gives the
institution the right to discipline its students and inculcate upon them good values, ideals and
attitude. The right of students to free speech in school is not always absolute. The court upheld
the right of students for the freedom of expression but it does not rule out disciplinary actions of
the school on the conduct of their students. Further, Sec. 7 of the of the Campus Journalism Act
provides that the school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles they
write EXCEPT when such article materially disrupts class work of involve substantial disorder
or invasion of the rights of others. Therefore the court ruled that the power of the school to
investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel. It is a necessary corollary to the
enforcement of rules and regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational
environment conducive to learning. That power, like the power to suspend or expel, is an
inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning guaranteed by the
Constitution. The court held that Miriam Collegehas the authority to hear and decide the cases
filed against respondent students.
 35. Miriam College Foundation, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Facts
Miriam college has found its school paper (Chi-Rho), and magazine (Ang Magasing
Pampanitikan ng Chi-Rho) contents of the September-October 1994 issue “Obscene,” “vulgar,”
“indecent,” “gross,” “sexually explicit,” “injurious to young readers,” and devoid of all moral values.”
Following the publication of the paper and the magazine, the members of the editorial board, author,
all students of Miriam College, received a letter signed by Dr. Aleli Sevilla, Chair of the Miriam College
Discipline Committee to inform them that their are letters of complaint filed against them by members
of the Miriam Community and a concerned Ateneo grade five student that had been forwarded to the
Discipline Committee for inquiry and investigation and required them submit a written statement in
answer to the charge/s on or before the initial date of hearing, but none of the students submitted their
respective answers. They instead requested Dr. Sevilla to transfer the case to the Regional Office of the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), which they contested, that had jurisdiction over
the case. Dr. Sevilla again required the students to file their written answers. In response, the lawyer for
the students submitted a letter to the Discipline Committee reiterating his clients’ position that said
Committee had no jurisdiction over them. The Discipline Committee proceeded with its investigation ex
parte. Thereafter, the Discipline Board, after a review of the Discipline Committee’s report, imposed
disciplinary sanctions upon the students. The students were suspended, expelled, dismissed, and one
was not allowed to attend her graduation.

The students thus filed a petition for prohibition and certiorari with preliminary injunction/restraining
order before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City questioning the jurisdiction of the Discipline Board
of Miriam College over them. The RTC issued an order denying the plaintiffs’ prayer for a Temporary
Restraining Order. The students thereafter filed a “Supplemental Petition and Motion for
Reconsideration.” The RTC issued an Order granting the writ of preliminary injunction. Both parties
moved for a reconsideration of the order. On the matter raised by both parties that it is the DECS which
has jurisdiction, the RTC DISMISSED the case and all orders it issued are recalled and set aside. The CA
issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining Miriam College from enforcing letters of
dismissal/suspension, but it eventually declared the RTC Order, as well as the students’ suspension and
dismissal, void.

Issue
1. Whether or not the trail court has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition for certiorari
filed by the students
2. Whether or not Miriam College has the jurisdiction over the complaints against the
students.
Held
1. YES, the grounds invoked by the students in their refusal to answer the charges against
them were limited to the question of jurisdiction – a question purely legal in nature and
well within the competence and the jurisdiction of the trial court, not the DECS Regional
Office. This is an exception to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
 As the Court held in Phil. Global Communications, Inc. vs. Relova : Absent such clarity as to
the scope and coverage of its franchise, a legal question arises which is more appropriate
for the judiciary than for an administrative agency to resolve. The doctrine of primary
jurisdiction calls for application when there is such competence to act on the part of an
administrative body.
A court having jurisdiction of a case has not only the right and the power or authority, but
also the duty, to exercise that jurisdiction and to render a decision in a case properly
submitted to it.
2. YES, Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act should be read in a manner as not to infringe upon
the school's right to discipline its students. At the same time, however, we should not construe
said provision as to unduly restrict the right of the students to free speech. Consistent with
jurisprudence, we read Section 7 of the Campus Journalism Act to mean that the school cannot
suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles he or she has
written,except when such articles materially disrupt class work or involve substantial disorder
or invasion of the rights of others.
The power of the school to investigate is an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel. It is a
necessary corollary to the enforcement of rules and regulations and the maintenance of a safe
and orderly educational environment conducive to learning. That power, like the power to
suspend or expel, is an inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of higher learning
guaranteed by the Constitution.
SC rule that Miriam College has the authority to hear and decide the cases filed against
students.