Camacho vs. Coresis, Jr.

The Ombudsman does not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing administrative and criminal complaints against a graduate-school professor and the Board of Regents where the professor, as OIC of the Graduate School, allowed a special self-study arrangement for graduate students under Article 140 of the University Code, the Board of Regents validated the teaching method, and the Ombudsman’s findings are supported by substantial evidence; the constitutional guarantee of academic freedom protects the institution’s choice of how a subject shall be taught.

Petitioner Manuel Camacho was Dean of the College of Education of the University of Southeastern Philippines, while respondent Dr. Sixto O. Daleon was a Professor 6 and officer-in-charge of the Graduate School; respondents Aida Agulo, Norma Tecson, and Desiderio Alaba were faculty members of the same university. The dispute implicated the University Code’s attendance rules, the Board of Regents’ policy-making authority, the constitutional guarantee of academic freedom in higher learning institutions, and the Ombudsman’s power to dismiss complaints for violation of Section 3(a), (e), and (j) of Republic Act No. 3019.

At the center of the controversy were Manuel Camacho, Dean of the College of Education of the University of Southeastern Philippines in Davao City, and Dr. Sixto O. Daleon, a Professor 6 and officer-in-charge of the Graduate School, together with faculty members Aida Agulo, Norma Tecson, and Desiderio Alaba, who enrolled under Dr. Daleon in Ed.D. 317, Seminar in Curriculum Development, during the first semester of 1994-1995. At the end of the semester, Dr. Daleon gave Agulo, Tecson, and Alaba final passing grades of 1.0, 1.25, and 1.5, respectively, 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 Camacho that during the first semester of school year 1994-1995 there were “ghost students” in Dr. Daleon’s Ed.D. 317 class; according to them, Agulo, Alaba, and Tecson were given passing grades despite their failure to attend classes. On June 13, 1995, Camacho informed Dr. Daleon of the complaint and requested photocopies of exams, term papers, and record of attendance of the students involved. Dr. Daleon ignored the request. In a letter dated August 10, 1995, Dr. Daleon apologized for the delay in responding to Camacho’s letter-request dated June 15, 1995, and admitted that he made special arrangements with Agulo, Alaba, and Tecson regarding their course without Camacho’s approval.

On July 28, 1995, the matter was raised in a university council meeting where it was agreed that University President Dr. Edmundo Prantilla would create a committee to investigate the complaint. Thereafter, Camacho 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 Agulo’s appeal for validation of the grades given by Dr. Daleon to the three of them. On December 23, 1995, the Board of Regents passed Resolution No. 2432, Series of 1995, upholding the grade given by Dr. Daleon to Agulo.

Consequently, Camacho filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Dr. Daleon before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, docketed as OMB-ADM-3-96-0132, for gross incompetence, insubordination, and violation of R.A. 6770. On May 28, 1996, he submitted a Manifestation with Prayer, with a Supplement to Complaint-Affidavit for violation of R.A. 3019 and/or 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 ordered respondent members of the Board of Regents and the committee created to hear Administrative Case No. 96-602 to desist from conducting further proceedings and to have the entire records of the criminal complaint forwarded to the Office for possible consolidation with the administrative complaint.

The Ombudsman’s resolution, which Camacho challenged before the SC, gave weight to Dr. Daleon’s counter-affidavit 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, and she cited her experience when she pursued her doctoral course at UP Los Baños and her allowance of the same special arrangement for her students at the USP Graduate School. It was undisputed that at the time Dr. Daleon handled the graduate class in Ed.D. 317, he had already been duly designated Officer-In-Charge 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.

• University Code Violation and Ultra Vires BOR Resolutions: Petitioner argued that the questioned dispositions failed to find the acts of Dr. Daleon and respondents Agulo, Alaba, and Tecson not in accordance with the University Code, particularly Articles 128, 140, 141, and 152 (last paragraph), and that the Board of Regents Resolutions No. 2432, Series of 1995 and No. 2449, Series of 1996 were ultra vires and contrary to the University Code.
• Academic Freedom: Petitioner argued that there was obvious abuse and grave error in misapplying the principle of academic freedom to absolve Dr. Daleon of the administrative complaint and the students and the Board of Regents of the anti-graft charges.
• Due Process: Petitioner argued that the Resolution and Order of the Graft Investigation Officer and/or the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao were attended by patent due process violations because their findings and conclusions emanated from self-serving, incredible, and hearsay proffers and did not consider petitioner’s evidence.

• No Grave Abuse of Discretion: Respondent countered, through the Office of the Solicitor General, that the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
• University Code: Respondent argued that 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.
• Academic Freedom: Respondent maintained the primacy of academic freedom in higher institutions of learning, and that Dr. Daleon’s teaching style, validated by the Board of Regents, is bolstered by the constitutional guarantee on academic freedom.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Whether the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in exonerating Dr. Daleon from administrative and criminal liability, and in dismissing the complaints against the other respondents, arising from Dr. Daleon’s giving passing grades to Agulo, Tecson, and Alaba without requiring them to attend classes.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: No. The SC found no grave abuse of discretion because the Ombudsman’s conclusions rested on substantial evidence, Dr. Daleon as OIC of the Graduate School could modify attendance rules under Article 140 of the University Code, and the Board of Regents validated his teaching method within academic freedom.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion: A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction; it requires a showing that the respondent tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Absent such a showing, the acts of the respondents may not be subjected to review under Rule 65. The SC found no valid ground nor cogent reason to hold that the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao gravely abused its discretion in issuing the assailed Resolution dated June 3, 1997. The conclusions in the resolution were based on substantial evidence easily verifiable from the records, and factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by the SC provided they are supported by substantial evidence. Graft Investigation Officer I Jovito A. Coresis, Jr. gave weight to Dr. Daleon’s counter-affidavit as corroborated by Prof. Concesa P. Lagare’s affidavit; these affidavits averred that during the graduate school orientation program sometime in July 1995, 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, in reply to Dr. Daleon’s query on USP’s attendance policy and whether he could give grades to students who do not attend classes, and she cited her own experience at UP Los Baños and her allowance of the same arrangement for her students at the USP Graduate School. The Ombudsman also anchored on Article 140 of the University Code, which provides that the rules on attendance of students shall be enforced in all classes subject to modification by the Dean in the case of graduate students and other courses. It was undisputed that Dr. Daleon had already been designated OIC of the Graduate School by the USP President and was entitled to the emoluments inherent to the Office of the Dean of the Graduate School; as OIC performing the functions of the Dean, he had authority to modify the attendance rule without seeking petitioner’s permission. Dr. Daleon’s teaching style also had the support of the Board of Regents, the body with authority to formulate university policies; in passing Resolution No. 2432, Series of 1995, the BOR validated the grade given to Agulo and gave an imprimatur on the propriety, regularity, and acceptability of Dr. Daleon’s instructional approach, citing Article 155 (no grade shall be changed after the report has been submitted) and Article 3 (every member of the faculty shall enjoy academic freedom, the right of the professor to teach the subject of his specialization according to his best lights, and no restraint in the choice of subjects for research and investigation). The Ombudsman treated the BOR Resolution as an exercise of sound discretion as the final arbiter of issues affecting the internal operations of the university and as interpreter of school policies. The SC agreed with respondents’ position on the primacy of academic freedom in higher institutions of learning. 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 Dr. Daleon’s teaching method is apparent in the third freedom, “how it shall be taught.” Academic freedom also accords a faculty member the right to pursue his studies in his particular specialty; it is the right claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as investigator, to interpret his findings and communicate his conclusions without interference, molestation, or penalty because these conclusions are unacceptable to some constituted authority within or beyond the institution. As applied, academic freedom clothes Dr. Daleon with the widest latitude to innovate and experiment on the method of teaching most fitting to his students, graduate students at that, subject only to the rules and policies of the university. Since the Board of Regents validated his teaching style, the SC saw no reason for petitioner to complain simply because he holds a contrary opinion. Petitioner failed to establish that Dr. Daleon and the Board of Regents acted in evident bad faith or with manifest partiality in the performance of their official duties; hence, there was no basis to hold that the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao committed grave abuse of discretion in exonerating respondents from both administrative and criminal charges.

• Grave abuse of discretion as ground for certiorari under Rule 65 — A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy for the correction of errors of jurisdiction; it requires a showing that the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, and that there is no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The SC applied it by finding no grave abuse in the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaints.
• Finality of administrative findings supported by substantial evidence — Factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by the SC provided they are supported by substantial evidence. The SC applied it because the Ombudsman’s conclusions were based on substantial evidence easily verifiable from the records, including Dr. Daleon’s counter-affidavit corroborated by Prof. Lagare.
• Academic freedom is two-tiered — It consists of the academic institution’s freedom and the teacher’s freedom. 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 on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. The teacher’s academic freedom is the right claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as investigator, to interpret findings and communicate conclusions without interference, molestation, or penalty because the conclusions are unacceptable to some constituted authority within or beyond the institution. The SC applied it to Dr. Daleon’s teaching method, validated by the BOR.
• Modification of attendance rules by the Dean for graduate students — Under Article 140 of the University Code, rules on attendance of students shall be enforced in all classes subject to modification by the Dean in the case of graduate students and other courses. The SC applied it because Dr. Daleon was OIC of the Graduate School and performing the functions of the Dean, so he had authority to modify the attendance rule without seeking petitioner’s permission.
• No evident bad faith or manifest partiality under R.A. 3019 — For liability under Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, the SC looked for evident bad faith or manifest partiality; petitioner failed to establish that Dr. Daleon and the BOR acted in evident bad faith or with manifest partiality in the performance of their official duties. This supported the dismissal of the criminal complaint.

• “Academic freedom is two-tiered – that of the academic institution and the teacher’s.” — The SC frames the two aspects of academic freedom before applying it to Dr. Daleon and the University.
• “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 SC defines institutional academic freedom and identifies “how it shall be taught” as the freedom implicated by Dr. Daleon’s teaching method.
• “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.” — The SC applies academic freedom to uphold Dr. Daleon’s special teaching arrangement because the BOR validated it.
• “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.” — The SC uses the absence of evident bad faith or manifest partiality to reject the grave abuse of discretion claim.

• Litonjua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120294, 286 SCRA 136, 149 (1998) — Cited to support the principle that factual findings of administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality by the SC when supported by substantial evidence.
• Miriam College vs. CA, G.R. No. 127930, 348 SCRA 265, 284-285 (2000) — Cited for the scope of institutional academic freedom, including the freedom to determine who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.
• Montemayor vs. Araneta University Foundation et al., No. L-44251, 77 SCRA 321, 327 (1977) — Cited for the definition of a faculty member’s academic freedom as the right of the accredited educator, as teacher and investigator, to interpret findings and communicate conclusions without interference, molestation, or penalty.
• Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, No. L-40779, 68 SCRA 277 (1975) — Cited in Montemayor for the same definition of academic freedom.

• Section 3(a), (e), and (j), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Section 3(a) covers persuading, inducing, or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations or allowing oneself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense; Section 3(e) covers causing undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; Section 3(j) covers knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege, or benefit in favor of a person not qualified or legally entitled thereto. The SC found no prima facie case and no evident bad faith or manifest partiality, so the Ombudsman’s dismissal stood.
• Section 5, Article XIV, 1987 Constitution — Provides that academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning. The SC applied it to uphold Dr. Daleon’s teaching style as validated by the BOR.
• Rule 65, Section 1, Rules of Court — Governs certiorari; requires lack or excess of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and no appeal or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The SC applied it in dismissing the petition for failure to show grave abuse.
• Article 140, University Code of USP — Provides that rules on attendance of students shall be enforced in all classes subject to modification by the Dean in the case of graduate students and other courses. The SC applied it to Dr. Daleon as OIC of the Graduate School.
• Article 155, University Code of USP — Provides that no grade shall be changed after the report has been submitted. The BOR cited it in upholding the first grading sheet submitted by Dr. Daleon.
• Article 3, University Code of USP — Provides that every member of the faculty shall enjoy academic freedom, the right of the professor to teach the subject of his specialization according to his best lights, and that no restraint shall be placed upon him in the choice of subjects for research and investigation. The BOR cited it, and the SC used it in the academic freedom analysis.