SOPHIA ALCUAZ, ET AL., petitioners vs.

PHILIPPINE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS

ADMINISTRATION Quezon City Branch ET AL, respondents
May 2, 1988

FACTS:

In 1986, some PSBA students, herein petitioners Alcuaz et. al. staged demonstrations in the
premises of the school. In order for the demonstration to be settled, an agreement was entered into
among others the regulations for the conduct of protest action. In spite of the agreement, it was
alleged that the petitioners, committed tumultuous and anarchic acts within the premises of the
school, fanned by the cooperation of the intervening professors, causing disruption of classes to
the prejudice of the majority students. The school took administrative sanctions upon them in view
of their participation in the demonstration. The students and the intervening professors were
sanctioned. They were dismissed and terminated.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there has been a deprivation of constitutional rights of expression and assembly
and of due process of law of the students who have been barred from re-enrollment.

HELD:

The Supreme Court held that due process in disciplinary cases such as the case at bar does not
entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in the
courts of justice. The Court has already recognized the right of the school to refuse re-enrollment
of students for academic delinquency and violation of disciplinary regulations. In the school’s
administrative process, both students and professors were given three (3) days from receipt of
letter to explain in writing why the school should not take administrative sanction against them.
With respect to the academic activities of the students and the teaching loads of the teachers, the
respondent school has created new class for the petitioners and the intervening professors during
and when the investigation was going on.

The Court then upheld that there is no denial of due process where all requirementsof
administrative due process were met by the school and the students were given the opportunity to
be heard and that the right of expression and assembly are not absolute especially when parties are
bound to certain rules under a contract.