SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 138862. August 15, 2003]

DR. MANUEL CAMACHO, petitioner, vs. HON. RICARDO GLORIA, DR. EDMUNDO
PRANTILLA, DIR. SANTIAGO ENGINCO, As members of the Board of Regents of the
University of Southeastern Philippines; HON. RENO CAPINPIN, CESAR LIMBAGA,
LEOVIGILDO ARELLANO, As members of the Special Investigation Committee; DR.
THELMA LEDESMA, and HON. WENCESLAO IBABAO, in his capacity as Presiding Judge
of Davao City, respondents.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

Petitioner Manuel Camacho seeks the review of the decision dated September 9, 1997, of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42860 affirming the resolution of the Regional Trial Court
of Davao City, Branch 33, which denied the petition for prohibition filed by petitioner against
respondents.

Petitioner is the Dean of the College of Education of the University of Southeastern Philippines
(USP). Sometime in June 1995, several doctorate students complained to petitioner of certain
“ghost students” in the Ed. D. 317 class of Dr. Sixto Daleon during the first semester of school
year 1994-1995 who were given passing grades despite their unjustified failure to attend classes.

Petitioner brought the matter to the attention of the University President Edmundo Prantilla and
to the Board of Regents (BOR) where Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS)
Secretary Ricardo Gloria sat as chairman. On December 23, 1995, the Board of Regents passed
Resolution No. 2432 Series of 1995, upholding the grade given by Dr. Daleon to Aida Agulo.

Disgruntled, petitioner filed a complaint on January 25, 1996, against Dr. Daleon before the
Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao for gross incompetence and insubordination. The
complaint, docketed as OMB-ADM-3-96-0132, was later amended to include the University
Board of Regents chaired by then DECS Secretary Gloria, DECS Legal Officer Reno Capinpin,
and the three students who received passing marks despite numerous absences, namely Aida
Agulo, Desiderio Alaba and Norma Tecson.

On June 3, 1997, Graft Investigator Atty. Jovito Coresis, Jr., issued a resolution dismissing
OMB-ADM-3-96-0132, which was approved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto. On August 22,
2002, this Court rendered a decision affirming said resolution of the Ombudsman.

Meanwhile, on February 21, 1996, Dr. Thelma S. Ledesma, Secretary of the Board of Regents of
the University of Southeastern Philippines, filed a complaint against petitioner before the Office
of the USP President for grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a dean and falsification of
public documents. Docketed as Administrative Case No. 001, Ledesma’s complaint alleged that
petitioner rigged the results of the performance evaluation test taken by her students in order to
justify petitioner in not giving her any teaching assignment.

Acting on Adm. Case No. 001, Secretary Gloria, in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of
Regents of USP, created a Special Investigation Committee (SIC) composed of DECS Assistant
Secretary Reno A. Capinpin as Chairman, with Leovigildo P. Arellano and Cesar M. Limbaga as
members. During the preliminary conference on August 1, 1996, petitioner moved for the
inhibition of the committee members on the ground that the ones who formed the committee,
namely DECS Secretary Gloria and the committee chairman, Atty. Capinpin, were both
respondents in the Ombudsman case he filed.

In a resolution dated August 19, 1996, the Special Investigation Committee resolved to deny
petitioner’s motion to inhibit, and scheduled the case for hearing on August 22, 1996.

On August 21, 1996, petitioner filed a petition for prohibition with prayer for a temporary
restraining order before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, Branch 33 in Civil Case
No. 24, 606-96, naming Secretary Gloria, and the chairman and members of the Special
Investigation Committee as respondents. Petitioner prayed that the Special Investigation
Committee be restrained from hearing Admin. Case No. 001 as the creation of the committee
violated his right to due process.

On August 21, 1996, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order. Respondents
seasonably filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action, insufficiency of the
petition in form and substance, and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioner
opposed respondents’ motion while Dr. Thelma S. Ledesma filed her urgent motion for leave to
intervene.

In a resolution dated October 14, 1996, the trial court dismissed petitioner’s petition for
prohibition. In the trial court’s rationale, petitioner should have first exhausted his administrative
remedies by undergoing investigation by the committee, and if its ruling is adverse, to appeal the
same to the Secretary of Education, and, thereafter, to the Office of the President. The trial court
likewise denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in its order dated November 14, 1996.

Forthwith, petitioner filed in the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a writ
of preliminary injunction, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 42860. On September 9, 1997, the
appellate court denied the petition as well as the subsequent motion for reconsideration for lack
of merit.

Before us, petitioner raises now the following issues:

1. WHETHER OR NOT EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES IS

A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO JUDICIAL RELIEF;

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE PASSAGE OF B.P. BLG. 12 (AN ACT

ESTABLISHING THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHILIPPINES)
 REPEALED PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE RULES
AND OF THE MAGNA CARTA FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS;

3. WHETHER OR NOT R.A. 7722 (AN ACT CREATING THE COMMISSION

ON HIGHER EDUCATION, APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES) DIVESTED THE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION,
CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS) OF HIS JURISDICTION OVER TERTIARY
INSTITUTIONS; AND

4. WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE HAS

JURISDICTION TO HEAR ADMINISTRATIVE CASE NO. 001.

Despite petitioner’s formulation, we find that the pertinent issues could be stated briefly as
follows: (1) whether or not the Board of Regents of USP, through the Special Investigation
Committee, has jurisdiction over Adm. Case No. 001 and (2) whether or not petitioner’s right to
due process was violated by the Special Investigation Committee of the university.

On one hand, petitioner avers that the Board of Regents has no jurisdiction over his case
considering that as a teacher, original jurisdiction over the administrative case against him is
vested with a committee whose composition must be in accordance with Republic Act No. 4670,
the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.

On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains that inasmuch as the Board of
Regents is the highest governing body of the university, it has the power to create investigating
committees to act upon administrative complaints filed against its personnel pursuant to the USP
Charter, Batas Pambansa Blg. 12.

We agree with the Solicitor General’s submission. The Board of Regents where DECS Secretary
Gloria sat as Chairman has jurisdiction over the administrative case filed by Dr. Ledesma against
petitioner. The BOR’s authority to create the investigating committee as its arm to probe into the
charges against petitioner emanates from the law creating USP, its Charter, BP Blg. 12. Section 6
thereof provides that the governing body of the university shall be the Board of Regents. In
addition to its general powers of administration, the Charter also accords the Board the specific
power to appoint the deans, directors, or heads of colleges, schools, institutes and other principal
units of the university. Consonant to its power to hire is the power to discipline its personnel. It
is, therefore, in line with the BOR’s power of governance to create a Special Investigation
Committee to probe into administrative complaints filed against its officers.

Under its Charter, USP’s Board of Regents must be chaired by the Secretary of Education.
Moreover, initially under Presidential Decree No. 1437, defining the composition and powers of
the governing boards, as well as the appointment and term of office of the Presidents of chartered
state universities and colleges, the Secretary of Education was Chairman of the Board of Regents
in all state universities.

Later, Republic Act 7722, an Act Creating the Commission of Higher Education (CHED),
divested the DECS Secretary of jurisdiction over tertiary institutions. Specifically, Section 18 of
Rep. Act 7722 provides: “Jurisdiction over DECS-supervised or chartered state-supported post-
secondary degree-granting vocational and technical programs and tertiary institutions shall be
transferred to the Commission.” However, Rep. Act 7722 and its Implementing Rules merely
replaced the DECS Secretary with the Chairman of the CHED as Chairman of all boards of
regents of state universities. The power of the boards of regents to administer and govern
chartered state universities was neither removed nor curtailed. The legislative intent to preserve
the administrative power of said governing boards, including the power to hire and fire school
officials and personnel, is manifest even in the most recent law, Republic Act 8292, the Higher
Education Modernization Act of 1997. Thus, it is clear that the governing boards of the state
universities have retained jurisdiction over administrative cases involving its officials and
employees.

As a matter of fact, the Board of Regents of the University of Southeastern Philippines has
already undergone reorganization in light of Rep. Act 7722, this time with the Chairman of the
CHED as its head. Accordingly, the BOR has reorganized the composition of the Special
Investigation Committee. But notwithstanding the changes in the composition of the board as
well as in the investigation committee, in his bid to divest the BOR of jurisdiction over the case
against him, petitioner still contends that the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, Rep. Act
4670 of 1966, is the law that should determine who shall compose the investigating committee.

On this score, we cannot agree with petitioner. The definition of “teacher” in Section 2 of Rep.
Act 4670 practically covers the entire gamut of the teaching profession including “all other
persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions in all schools, colleges and
universities operated by the Government or its political subdivisions.” However, the Magna
Carta has not been shown to be inconsistent with BP Blg. 12, or vice versa. It is a rule in
statutory construction that every statute must be so interpreted and brought in accord with other
laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. Thus petitioner’s submission, in our view,
lacks sufficient legal basis.

The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers is a general law governing the conduct of
administrative cases against public school teachers, whereas BP Blg. 12 is a special law
governing the University of Southeastern Philippines. It particularly defines the composition and
powers of its Board of Regents and other officials of the university. On a specific matter, a
special statute prevails over a general law. Lastly, Section 9 of the Magna Carta is silent as to the
composition of the committee if the person administratively charged is a College Dean of a state
university. Given its powers under BP Blg. 12, the USP Board of Regents may certainly create a
committee to assist it in resolving administrative complaints filed against one of the university
officials that it appointed.

Further, petitioner contends that the creation of the committee by the respondent Secretary, as
Chairman of the USP Board of Regents, was contrary to the Civil Service Rules. However, he
cites no specific provision of the Civil Service Law which was violated by the respondents in
forming the investigating committee. The Civil Service Rules embodied in Executive Order 292
recognize the power of the Secretary and the university, through its governing board, to
investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action against officers and employees under
their jurisdiction. Of course under EO 292, a complaint against a state university official may be
filed either with the university’s Board of Regents or directly with the Civil Service Commission,
although the CSC may delegate the investigation of a complaint and for that purpose, may
deputize any department, agency, official or group of officials to conduct such investigation.

On the second issue, petitioner contends that he was not accorded his right to due process when
respondent Secretary Gloria formed the Special Investigation Committee. Petitioner laments that
he could not expect the cold neutrality of an impartial judge from the Special Investigation
Committee considering that Secretary Gloria was one of the respondents in OMB-ADM-3-96-
0132. He adds that neither can he expect fair treatment from the Committee Chairman, Atty.
Reno Capinpin, who was also one of the co-respondents therein. Petitioner also claims that the
CA erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling that petitioner should have first exhausted his
administrative remedies by undergoing investigation by the committee, with possible appeal to
the Secretary of Education and thereafter the Office of the President. The principle of exhaustion
of administrative remedies, according to petitioner, rests on the presumption that the
administrative agency, if afforded a complete chance to pass upon the matter, would decide the
matter correctly, unlike in his case, he said, where a fair trial is a remote possibility given the
composition of the investigating committee.

Petitioner’s allegations that Secretary Gloria and the Special Investigation Committee members
were biased and partial are merely speculative. There is no showing that the Education Secretary
and the Committee members had an interest, personal or otherwise, in the prosecution of the case
against petitioner. Absent persuasive proof of bias and partiality, Secretary Gloria and the
committee could not be presumed to be incapable of acting regularly in the performance of
official functions. They must be accorded the benefit of the presumption that they would act in a
manner befitting their sworn duties, particularly, with “the cold neutrality of an impartial judge”
implicit in the guarantee of due process.

Lastly, we must stress that generally a party must explore all remedies available in the
administrative arena before seeking judicial relief. This doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not without its practical and legal reasons. For one thing, availment of
administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and provides for a speedier disposition of
controversies. The administrative authority must be given an opportunity to act and correct the
errors committed in the administrative forum. In this case, petitioner has no valid reason to
block at the very outset the Board of Regents and the Special Investigation Committee from
performing their functions. Only after administrative remedies are exhausted may judicial
recourse be allowed.

To conclude, the Court finds: (a) that the Board of Regents of the University of Southeastern
Philippines has jurisdiction over the administrative complaint against petitioner, and (b) that
petitioner’s right to due process was not infringed by the BOR’s formation of the Special
Investigation Committee.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision dated
September 9, 1997 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42860 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.

Callejo, Sr., on leave.

Rollo, pp. 12-17.

CA Rollo, pp. 18-27.

Id. at 33-34.

Camacho v. Coresis, Jr., G.R. No. 134372, 22 August 2002, p. 12.

CA Rollo, pp. 68-70.

Id. at 92-93.

Id. at 93.

Id. at 94-103.

Id. at 86-87.

Id. at 130-135.

Id. at 140.

Id. at 141-161.

Supra, note 2.

CA Rollo, p. 28.

Id. at 5-16.

Supra, note 1.

Rollo, p. 4.

Enacted without Executive approval, 15 December 1978.

SEC. 1. Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the composition of the governing
boards of chartered state universities and colleges is hereby modified and reconstituted as
follows:

Secretary of Education and Culture, Chairman

President of the University or College, Vice-Chairman

Representative of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Member

Two (2) prominent citizens who have distinguished themselves in the professions or fields of
specialization of the institutions concerned, one representing the alumni of the institution
concerned, the other chosen from prominent citizens in the city or province where the school is
located, to be appointed by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the
Secretary of Education and Culture, Member (Emphasis supplied.)

x x x

Approved, 18 May 1994.

SEC. 4. Powers and Duties of Governing Boards. – The governing board shall have the
following specific powers and duties in addition to its general powers of administration and the
exercise of all the powers granted to the board of directors of a corporation under Section 36 of
Batas Pambansa Blg. 68, otherwise known as the Corporation Code of the Philippines:

x x x

g) to appoint, upon the recommendation of the president of the university or college, vice
presidents, deans, directors, heads of departments, faculty members and other officials and
employees;

x x x

RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING R.A. 7722 AS AMENDED, Chapter I dated

September 13, 1994.

x x x

Article 5. Definition of Terms. – For purposes of these Rules, the following

definitions will apply:

x x x

“The Chairman of the Commission shall serve as Chairman of the Governing Boards of
SCUs until such time as their existing charters are revised.” (Emphasis in the original.)

x x x

Rollo, p. 89.
SEC. 2. Title-Definition. – This Act shall be known as the “Magna Carta for Public School
Teachers” and shall apply to all public school teachers except those in the professional staff of
state colleges and universities.

As used in this Act, the term “teacher” shall mean all persons engaged in classroom teaching, in
any level of instruction, on full-time basis, including guidance counselors, school librarians,
industrial arts or vocational instructors, and all other persons performing supervisory and/or
administrative functions in all schools, colleges and universities operated by the Government or
its political subdivisions; but shall not include school nurses, school physicians, school dentists,
and other school employees. (Emphasis Supplied.)

City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella, G.R. No. 141211, 31 August 2001, 364 SCRA
257, 278.

SEC. 9. Administrative Charges. – Administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard

initially by a committee composed of the corresponding School Superintendent of the Division
or a duly authorized representative who should at least have the rank of a division supervisor,
where the teacher belongs, as chairman, a representative of the local or, in its absence, any
existing provincial or national teacher’s organization and a supervisor of the Division, the last
two to be designated by the Director of Public Schools. The committee shall submit its findings
and recommendations to the Director of Public Schools within thirty days from the termination
of the hearings: Provided, however, That where the school superintendent is the complainant or
an interested party, all the members of the committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Education.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Executive Order No. 292, Book IV The Executive Branch,
Subtitle A, Chapter 6.

SEC. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.-

x x x

(2) The Secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and
municipalities shall have jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary
action against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. Their decisions shall be final in
case the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not
exceeding thirty days', salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or office head is
appealable to the Commission, the same may be initially appealed to the department and finally
to the Commission and pending appeal, the same shall be executory except when the penalty is
removal, in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary
concerned. (Emphasis supplied.)

x x x

Id.
SEC. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.-

(1) The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the
imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding
thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A
complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private citizen against a government
official or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any
department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the investigation. The results of
the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to
be imposed or other action to be taken. (Emphasis supplied.)

x x x

Rollo, p. 7.

See Ambil, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 143398, 25 October 2000, 344 SCRA 358,
372.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 134372. August 22, 2002]

MANUEL CAMACHO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. JOVITO A. CORESIS, JR., Graft Investigation
Officer I and/or OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN - MINDANAO, SIXTO O. DALEON, AIDA
AGULO, DESIDERIO ALABA, NORMA TECSON, and the BOARD OF REGENTS of the
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHILIPPINES; SECRETARY RICARDO GLORIA,
ASSISTANT SECRETARY RENO CAPINPIN – of the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS), DR. EDMUNDO B. PRANTILLA, and NEDA REGIONAL DIRECTOR
SANTIAGO ENGINCO, respondents.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J.:

Subject of the present petition for certiorari is the Resolution dated June 3, 1997 of the Office of
the Ombudsman-Mindanao, hereafter simply the Office, which dismissed the administrative and
criminal complaints against respondents Sixto O. Daleon, Aida Agulo, Desiderio Alaba, Norma
Tecson and the Board of Regents of the University of Southeastern Philippines (USP), Davao
City, for violation of Section 3 [a], [e] and [j] of Republic Act 3019 also known as the “Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.” Also sought to be nullified is the Order of the Office dated
September 10, 1997, denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The pertinent facts as culled from the records are as follows:

Petitioner is the Dean of the College of Education of said university, since January 1994 to the
present. He has served the university as faculty member and as administrator for almost 13
years.

Respondent, Dr. Sixto O. Daleon, is a Professor 6 and officer-in-charge of the Graduate School
of USP, with a salary grade of CS 29. The other respondents, Agulo, Tecson and Alaba, are
faculty members of said university. They enrolled under Dr. Daleon in the subject Ed.D. 317,
which is a Seminar in Curriculum Development, during the first semester of 1994-1995. At the
end of the semester, Dr. Daleon gave the three final passing grades of 1.0, 1.25 and 1.5,
respectively. They were graded without requiring them to attend regular classes. Instead, Dr.
Daleon gave them a special program of self-study with reading materials, once a week tutorial
meetings, quizzes, and term papers.

Sometime in June 1995, several doctoral students complained to petitioner that during the first
semester of school year 1994-1995, there were “ghost students” in the Ed.D. 317 class of Dr.
Daleon. According to them, these “ghost students”, namely Agulo, Alaba and Tecson were given
passing grades despite their failure to attend classes.

On June 13, 1995, petitioner informed Dr. Daleon of the complaint. Petitioner requested the
latter to furnish him with photocopies of exams, term papers, and record of attendance of the
students involved. Dr. Daleon ignored the request.

On July 28, 1995, the matter was raised in a university council meeting where it was agreed that
the University President, Dr. Edmundo Prantilla, would create a committee to investigate the
complaint.

In a letter dated August 10, 1995, Dr. Daleon apologized for the delay in responding to
petitioner’s letter-request dated June 15, 1995. Dr. Daleon admitted that he made special
arrangements with Agulo, Alaba and Tecson regarding their course without petitioner’s
approval.

Thereafter, petitioner wrote Dr. Prantilla recommending that Agulo, Tecson and Alaba be
required to attend regular classes in school year 1995-1996 and comply with the course
requirements in Ed.D. 317. Dr. Prantilla approved the recommendations. However, on
December 1, 1995, Dr. Prantilla entertained the appeal of Agulo for the validation of the grades
given by Dr. Daleon to the three of them. On December 23, 1995, the Board of Regents passed
its Resolution No. 2432 Series of 1995, upholding the grade given by Dr. Daleon to Agulo.

Consequently, petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Dr. Daleon before the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao. The complaint for gross incompetence, insubordination and violation of
R.A. 6770 was docketed as OMB-ADM-3-96-0132.

On May 28, 1996, petitioner submitted a Manifestation with Prayer, with a Supplement to
Complaint-Affidavit for Violation of R.A. 3019 and/or such other penal laws against Dr. Daleon,
Agulo, Alaba, Tecson and members of the USP Board of Regents, including Dr. Prantilla. On
July 24, 1996, the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao issued an order directing respondent
members of the Board of Regents and the committee created to hear Administrative Case No. 96-
602 to desist from conducting further proceedings thereon and to have the entire records of said
criminal complaint forwarded to the Office for possible consolidation with the administrative
complaint.

On June 3, 1997, a Resolution was issued by Atty. Jovito Coresis, Jr., graft investigator in the
Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, dismissing the administrative and criminal complaints
against respondents. Approved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, the resolution in its dispositive
portion reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding insufficient evidence to hold respondent Dr. Daleon liable for the
administrative charges of incompetence, insubordination and favoritism or unjust discrimination,
or of any other laws, let the instant case be ordered DISMISSED.

Likewise, finding no prima facie case of violation of Section 3(a), (e) and (j), the criminal
complaint filed by Dr. Camacho against Professor Daleon, Mr. Desiderio Alaba, Misses Aida
Agulo, Norma Tecson, and the Members of the Board of Regents of USP is hereby DISMISSED
outright for want of palpable merit.

AS RESOLVED.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the same was denied for lack of merit in an Order dated
September 10, 1997.

Before us, petitioner now anchors the present petition on the following grounds:

1. THE SAID QUESTIONED DISPOSITIONS FAILED TO FIND THE ACTS OF

RESPONDENTS DALEON AND HIS RESPONDENTS-STUDENTS-AGULO, ALABA AND
TECSON TO BE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW IN THE
UNIVERSITY – THE UNIVERSITY CODE, PARTICULARLY THE PROVISIONS OF
ARTICLES 128, 140, 141, 152 (LAST PARAGRAPH) THEREIN; AND OF THE ACTS OF
RESPONDENT BOARD OF REGENTS AS “ULTRA VIRES” AND CONTRARY TO THE
SAID LAW IN THE UNIVERSITY WHEN IT PASSED BOARD OF REGENTS (BOR)
RESOLUTIONS NO. 2432 S. OF 1995 ON DECEMBER 23, 1995 AND NO. 2449 S. 1996,
RESPECTIVELY;

2. THERE WAS OBVIOUS ABUSE AND GRAVE ERROR IN MISAPPLYING THE

PRINCIPLE OF “ACADEMIC FREEDOM” TO ABSOLVE RESPONDENT DALEON OF
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; AND THE RESPONDENTS-STUDENTS AND THE
BOARD OF REGENTS (ALONG WITH SAID RESPONDENT DALEON) OF THE ANTI-
GRAFT CHARGES;

3. THE SAID RESOLUTION AND ORDER OF RESPONDENT GRAFT INVESTIGATION

OFFICER AND/OR THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN-MINDANAO WERE ATTENDED
BY PATENT “DUE PROCESS” VIOLATIONS AS THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
EMANATED FROM SELF-SERVING, INCREDIBLE AND HEARSAY PROFFERS; AND
DID NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER.

In issue is whether or not public respondents committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction in exonerating Dr. Daleon from administrative as well as criminal liability
arising from his giving passing grades to Agulo, Tecson and Alaba without requiring them to
attend classes.

Petitioner avers that public respondent Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, committed grave
abuse of discretion when it affirmed the impugned BOR resolution as it is contrary to the
University Code, violates due process and is based on self-serving hearsays. He argues that the
BOR resolution is based on a wrong interpretation of the constitutional provision on “academic
freedom”.

In its Comment, the Office of Solicitor General posits a contrary view. The OSG argues that
public respondent did not commit grave abuse of discretion. According to the OSG, there is no
provision in the University Code of USP which prohibits a professor or teacher from giving a
special program or arrangement tailored to meet the requirements of a particular course.

We are in agreement with the position taken by the respondents through the OSG. The petition
lacks merit and ought to dismissed.

A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is an extraordinary
remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction. To invoke the Court’s power of judicial review
under this Rule, it must first be shown that respondent tribunal, board or officer exercising
judicial or quasi- judicial functions has indeed acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction,
and that there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
law. Conversely, absent a showing of lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, the acts of the respondents may not be subjected to
our review under Rule 65.

From the records, we find no valid ground nor cogent reason to hold that the respondent Office
had gravely abused its discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution dated June 3, 1997. We note
that the conclusions in said resolution are based on substantial evidence easily verifiable from the
records. Well established is the principle that factual findings of administrative agencies are
generally accorded respect and even finality by this Court, provided such findings are supported
by substantial evidence, as in this case. Graft Investigation Officer I Jovito A. Coresis, Jr., of
said Office gave weight to the counter-affidavit of Dr. Daleon as corroborated by the affidavit of
Prof. Concesa P. Lagare, Professor 2 of the College of Education, USP. These affidavits averred
that during the graduate school orientation program sometime in July 1995, the university’s Vice
President for Academic Affairs, Dr. Luz D. Ancheta, declared that special arrangements between
a professor and a graduate student may be allowed on a case-to-case basis. Dr. Ancheta made
this statement in reply to Dr. Daleon’s query on the policy of USP on attendance of graduate
school students and whether Dr. Daleon could give grades to students who do not attend classes.
In her reply to Dr. Daleon’s query, the VPAA even cited her experience when she pursued her
doctoral course at UP Los Baños. According to Dr. Ancheta, she was given a special
arrangement by one of her professors. She added that she, too, had allowed the same special
arrangement for her students at the USP Graduate School.

Public respondent also anchored his decision on Article 140 of the University Code, which
provides that the rules on attendance of students shall be enforced in all classes subject to the
modification by the Dean in the case of graduate students and other courses. It is undisputed that
at the time that Dr. Daleon handled the graduate class in Ed.D. 317, he had already been duly
designated Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of the Graduate School by the President of USP and was
even entitled to the emoluments inherent to the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School.
Accordingly, as OIC, performing the functions of the Dean of the Graduate School, Dr. Daleon
had the authority to modify the rule on attendance without seeking permission of petitioner.

Further, Dr. Daleon’s teaching style had the support of the members of the Board of Regents, the
body with the authority to formulate university policies, fully knowing the policy on attendance
of students in the graduate school. In passing Resolution No. 2432, S. 1995, not only did they
validate the grade given by Dr. Daleon to Agulo, but they also gave an imprimatur on the
propriety, regularity and acceptability of Dr. Daleon’s instructional approach. In said resolution,
the BOR cited Article 155 and Article 3 of the University Code, thus:

The Board upheld the first grading sheet submitted by Dr. S. Daleon in the light of the following
provisions of the University Code: (1) Article 155 which states that “no grade shall be changed
after the report has been submitted” and (2) Article 3 which states that “Every member of the
faculty shall enjoy academic freedom, which is the right of the professor to teach the subject of
his specialization according to his best lights… nor shall any restraint be placed upon him in the
choice of subjects for research and investigation.”

The Dean must promote unity in his unit and must ensure that the dignity of every professor in
his unit is respected.

As held by the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, the Resolution of the Board of Regents is
clearly an exercise of its sound discretion as the final arbiter of issues affecting the internal
operations of the university and as interpreter of the policies of the school.

Finally, we agree with respondents’ position on the primacy of academic freedom in regard to
higher institutions of learning. Dr. Daleon’s teaching style, validated by the action of the USP
Board of Regents, is bolstered by the constitutional guarantee on academic freedom. Academic
freedom is two-tiered – that of the academic institution and the teacher’s.

Institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its
aims and objectives and the methods on how best to attain them, free from outside coercion or
interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It
encompasses the freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds: who may teach, what may
be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.” The right of the school to
confirm and validate the teaching method of Dr. Daleon is at once apparent in the third freedom,
i.e., “how it shall be taught.”
Academic freedom also accords a faculty member the right to pursue his studies in his particular
specialty. It is defined as a right claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as
investigator, to interpret his findings and to communicate his conclusions without being
subjected to any interference, molestation, or penalty because these conclusions are unacceptable
to some constituted authority within or beyond the institution. As applied to the case at bar,
academic freedom clothes Dr. Daleon with the widest latitude to innovate and experiment on the
method of teaching which is most fitting to his students (graduate students at that), subject only
to the rules and policies of the university. Considering that the Board of Regents, whose task is
to lay down school rules and policies of the University of Southeastern Philippines, has validated
his teaching style, we see no reason for petitioner to complain before us simply because he holds
a contrary opinion on the matter.

In our view, petitioner failed to establish that Dr. Daleon and the Board of Regents of the
University of Southeastern Philippines acted in evident bad faith or with manifest partiality in the
performance of their official duties. Hence, there is no basis to hold that the Office of the
Ombudsman-Mindanao committed any grave abuse of discretion in exonerating respondents
below from both administrative and criminal charges. The resolution of that Office is in order
for it accords with the facts and the law.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Resolution dated June
3, 1997, of the Office of the Ombudsman- Mindanao is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Acting C.J., (Chairman), Mendoza, and Corona, JJ., concur.

SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. – In addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public
officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting
a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.

xxx

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official,
administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices
or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.

xxx
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person
not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a
mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled. xxx

Rollo, p. 184.

Records, p. 8.

Supra, note 2.

Id. at 185.

Ibid.

Id. at 186.

Id. at 41.

Id. at 16-17.

Id. at 188.

Id. at 193.

Rules of Court, Rule 65, Sec. 1.

Litonjua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120294, 286 SCRA 136, 149 (1998).

Records, p. 38, Item 7.

Id. at 111, Annex “19”.

Id. at 11.

Id. at 68.

Id. at 15.

Ibid.

Rollo, p. 39.

Sec. 5., Art. XIV, 1987 Constitution-

xxx
 (2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.

xxx

Miriam College vs. CA, G.R. No. 127930, 348 SCRA 265, 284-285 (2000).

Id. at 285.

Montemayor vs. Araneta University Foundation et. al., No. L-44251, 77 SCRA 321, 327
(1977); citing Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, No. L-40779, 68 SCRA 277 (1975).

Ibid.