University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Ligot-Telan

The U.P. Board of Regents did not violate Nadal's due process, and its disciplinary sanction was a valid exercise of academic freedom; the RTC gravely abused its discretion in enjoining the suspension because mandamus will not lie to control discretionary academic decisions and substantial evidence supported the finding of dishonesty.

The University of the Philippines adopted the Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program (STFAP), known as the "Iskolar ng Bayan" program, to expand government educational subsidies to deserving students in lower socio-economic brackets. Applicants submitted a questionnaire and sworn statements by the student and parent, and the University's Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline treated deliberate falsification or suppression/withholding of material information in the application as a punishable act. Ramon P. Nadal was a U.P. College of Law student and STFAP recipient.

Ramon P. Nadal was a student in the U.P. College of Law and applied for STFAP benefits for School Years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991, where he was categorized in Bracket 4 for 1989-1990 and Bracket 5 for 1990-1991. In his applications, he answered a questionnaire on family income, properties, and special circumstances and signed a sworn statement certifying the accuracy and completeness of his data, with his parent sharing responsibility for the information. The application warned that willful misinformation or withholding of information could disqualify him, require reimbursement with legal interest, and serve as ground for expulsion; it also allowed a fact-finding team to visit his residence.

On March 14, 1991, a team composed of Arsenio L. Dona and Jose Carlo Manalo conducted a home investigation at Nadal's residence at 31 Twinpeaks Drive, Blue Ridge, Quezon City. They interviewed Nadal's aunt, Cristeta Packing, and submitted a home visit report. Consolacion Urbino, Scholarship Affairs Officer II, found discrepancies between the report and Nadal's application form; she and Bella M. Villanueva, head of the Office of Scholarships and Student Services, presented the matter to the Diliman Committee on Scholarships and Financial Assistance.

Acting on the Committee's directive, Bella Villanueva wrote Nadal that the investigation showed he failed to declare that he maintained a 1977 Corolla car owned by his brother and the income of his mother, who was supporting his brothers Antonio and Federico. The letter informed him that the Diliman Committee had reclassified him to Bracket 9 from Bracket 4, retroactive to June 1989, unless he submitted proof to the contrary, and required him to pay back the equivalent amount of full school fees with interest based on current commercial rates; failure to settle would mean suspension of registration privileges and withholding of clearance and transcript of records, and the case might be referred to the Student Disciplinary Tribunal. On July 12, 1991, Nadal issued a certification stating that his mother migrated to the United States in 1981 but, because her residency status had not been legalized, she had not found stable, regular, well-paying employment; he also stated that his mother, jointly with his brother Virgilio, was shouldering the college education of his two younger brothers.

Noting further discrepancies between Nadal's application form and his certification, U.P. charged Nadal before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal on August 23, 1991 with voluntarily and willfully withholding in his STFAP applications for School Years 1989-1990 and 1990-1991 (a) that he had and maintained a Toyota Corolla, Model 1977, and (b) the income of his mother, Natividad Packing Nadal, in the U.S.A. in support of the studies of his brothers Antonio and Federico, acts of dishonesty in relation to his studies under paragraph (a), Section 2 of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline. On October 27, 1992, after hearing, the SDT rendered a decision in SDT Case No. 91-026 exculpating Nadal of deliberately withholding information that he was maintaining a Toyota Corolla car but finding him guilty of willfully and deliberately withholding information about his mother's income, which it treated as dishonesty in relation to his studies; it imposed expulsion and required reimbursement of all STFAP benefits, with outside legal action if he did not voluntarily reimburse.

The SDT decision was automatically elevated to the U.P. Diliman Executive Committee, which on November 26, 1992 affirmed it by a 13:4 vote; Nadal appealed to the Board of Regents, and the appeal was included in the BOR agenda for January 25, 1993. On January 18, 1993, Senator Leticia Ramos-Shahani, upon becoming Chairman of the Senate Committee on Education and thereby a BOR member, wrote the BOR that after review by her legal staff she found Nadal's appeal meritorious and believed he should be allowed to graduate and take the bar examinations that year. At its January 25, 1993 meeting, the BOR affirmed the SDT but, willing to grant compassion because of the mother's alleged status as an immigrant "TNT" in the United States, modified the penalty from expulsion to one-year suspension effective immediately, plus reimbursement of all STFAP benefits with legal interest, and decided against giving Nadal a certificate of good moral character.

Nadal filed a motion for reconsideration, which was placed on the February 25, 1993 BOR agenda; the day before, Senator Shahani asked that deliberation be deferred until she could attend. U.P. filed an opposition on March 15, 1993, and the BOR held a special meeting to accommodate her request, with Nadal's case as the sole agenda item. The motion was again included in the March 23, 1993 agenda but deferred because Senator Shahani was absent. At the March 28, 1993 special meeting at the Manila Polo Club, Regent Antonio T. Carpio raised the material importance of verifying Nadal's claim that he had been a beneficiary of scholarship and financial aid from Ateneo de Manila University; because the Ateneo certification that it had not given Nadal financial aid was made through a telephone call, Carpio said there was no direct evidence to substantiate the charge and cast a conditional vote depending on verification. U.P. President and Regent Jose V. Abueva countered that a decision should not be anchored solely on one piece of information he considered irrelevant and that Nadal's Ateneo high school scholarship from 1979 to 1983 did not establish he was not guilty as charged, since the formal charges did not include withholding information on scholarship grants from other schools. In executive session, a secret ballot produced four guilty, three not guilty, and three conditional votes pending verification with Father Raymond Holscher of Ateneo; the Chairman clarified that once the Ateneo information was received, no further meeting was needed to validate the decision, and the President reiterated his objections to conditional votes; the Chairman did not vote.

In the morning of March 29, 1993, Ateneo issued a certification that Nadal was indeed a recipient of a scholarship grant from 1979 to 1983. That evening, the BOR met again at a special meeting at the Westin Philippine Plaza Hotel; according to Regent Carpio, in executive session the BOR found Nadal guilty, with six members voting guilty, three not guilty, and three abstaining. The BOR imposed one-year suspension effective March 29, 1993, non-issuance of any certificate of good moral character during the suspension and/or as long as Nadal had not reimbursed the STFAP benefits with 12% interest per annum from March 30, 1993, and non-issuance of his transcript of records until he settled his financial obligations. On March 30, 1993, Nadal wrote President Abueva a handwritten letter saying that after learning of the latest decision he was concentrating on his job to earn enough to pay his financial obligations and was "now letting nature take its course," and he begged that no press release be issued. On April 22, 1993, Nadal filed with the RTC of Quezon City a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and prayer for temporary restraining order against President Abueva, the BOR, Oscar M. Alfonso, Cesar A. Buenaventura, Armand V. Fabella, and Olivia C. Caoili; he prayed that the March 28, 1993 decision exonerating him be upheld and implemented, that SDT No. 91-026 be dismissed, and that respondents pay litigation expenses of at least P150,000.00. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order on May 10, 1993 and on May 29, 1993 a writ of preliminary injunction restraining further proceedings and suspension upon a P3,000 bond, finding that the circulation of the March 29 minutes created a threat of implementation during enrollment and that implementation would delay Nadal in finishing his course and getting a job, causing irreparable injury.

• Academic Freedom and Disciplinary Prerogative: Petitioners asserted the University's prerogative to discipline students found guilty of violating its rules of discipline and challenged the RTC's injunction preventing the BOR from implementing the suspension.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion: Petitioners sought certiorari and prohibition on the ground that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the May 29, 1993 writ of preliminary injunction, which prevented the BOR from implementing the suspension.

• Due Process — Notice of March 29 Meeting: Respondent argued that he was denied due process because he was not sent notice of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting, citing Non vs. Dames II.
• Finality of March 28 Decision: Respondent maintained that the March 28, 1993 meeting exonerated him and that the March 29 meeting was void for lack of due process.
• New Ground for Conviction: Respondent charged that in the March 29 meeting he was convicted on a ground not the same as the original charge.
• Real Party in Interest: Respondent raised the threshold issue that Dr. Caoili was not authorized by the BOR and Dr. Abueva was not the Board or the University, so petitioners were not real parties in interest.

• Real Party in Interest: Whether Dr. Caoili and Dr. Abueva are real parties in interest to file the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
• Due Process: Whether Nadal was denied due process in the administrative disciplinary proceedings, specifically in the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Propriety of Mandamus: Whether the RTC judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing the May 29, 1993 writ of preliminary injunction and in assuming jurisdiction over Nadal's petition for mandamus.

• Real Party in Interest: No. The BOR has a material interest in enforcing student discipline; Nadal is estopped from questioning petitioners' personality after naming them below, and service on the president or secretary is authorized.
• Due Process: No. Nadal was afforded due process up to the March 28 meeting; no rule required notice to him of the March 29 BOR meeting, the March 28 meeting produced no final verdict because of conditional votes, and substantial evidence supported the finding on the same charge.
• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Propriety of Mandamus: Yes. The RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction; academic freedom includes student discipline and admission, and mandamus will not lie to control discretionary academic decisions.

• Real Party in Interest: The SC held that a real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or is entitled to the avails of the suit, with an interest in issue and affected by the decree, not mere interest in the question involved. The BOR has a material interest because the issue concerns its power to impose disciplinary action against a student who violated the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline by withholding information in his STFAP application, which if disclosed would have sufficed to disqualify him from financial assistance; dishonesty left unpunished would subvert the STFAP. Nadal is estopped from questioning the personality of Drs. Abueva and Caoili because he specifically named them as respondents in his petition for mandamus below. Under Section 7 of the U.P. Charter (Act 1870) and Section 11 of the University Code, all process against the BOR shall be served on the president or secretary thereof; thus Dr. Caoili was named as petitioner and Dr. Abueva, the University President and BOR member, verified the petition. It is not mandatory that every BOR member be named, and failure to include an indispensable party may be excused where naming the party would be a mere formality.

• Due Process: The SC noted that Nadal conceded he was afforded due process from the start of the administrative proceeding up to the BOR meeting on March 28, 1993; he challenged only the March 29 meeting. University rules do not require the attendance in BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as agenda items, including students whose disciplinary cases have been appealed to the BOR as the final review body. Nadal never complained of lack of notice for the regular and special BOR meetings where his case was deliberated; he excepted only the March 29 meeting. The March 28 meeting produced no final verdict because three regents cast conditional votes pending verification of Nadal's Ateneo scholarship claim; Regent Carpio testified he was not morally convinced due to lack of direct evidence, and no definitive decision or exoneration was reached. On March 29, all twelve BOR members were present and participated in the voting to reconsider; a majority ruled that the matter could be reconsidered upon the chairman's motion, and the final vote was six guilty, three not guilty, and three abstained. The charge considered was exactly the same charge of withholding information on Nadal's mother's income. The Ateneo verification was irrelevant and a mere superfluity; Nadal's July 12, 1991 certification admitted, although inconsistently, that his mother was a "TNT" who could not find stable, regular, well-paying employment but was supporting the education of his brothers with the help of another son, which was sufficient admission that he withheld information on his mother's income, however measly and irregular. Administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings require only substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, due process was not violated and substantial evidence supported the violation. Non vs. Dames II was distinguished because it involved students refused admission for mass actions, posing a collision between free expression and academic freedom, while Nadal was suspended for breaching disciplinary rules and had due process until the March 28 meeting.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion and Propriety of Mandamus: The SC held that the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the May 29, 1993 writ of preliminary injunction. The RTC based the writ on a finding that implementation of the suspension would delay Nadal in finishing his course and getting a decent, good-paying job, considering only Nadal's situation and disregarding the academic freedom that justified the disciplinary sanction. The lower court should have restrained itself from assuming jurisdiction over Nadal's petition for mandamus, because mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases and requires a showing of a clear and certain right; it is unavailable against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. By issuing the writ, the RTC curtailed the University's exercise of academic freedom and opened the door for Nadal to enroll for the first semester of 1993-1994, rendering the suspension moot. Academic freedom includes the matter of admission to a university and the right to establish and enforce reasonable rules on student discipline; admission is discretionary upon the school and a privilege on the part of the student, subject to academic and disciplinary standards. The SC relied on Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology and Ateneo de Manila University vs. Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong for these principles.

• Academic Freedom in Student Admission and Discipline — Academic freedom includes the educational institution's right to decide admission and to establish and enforce reasonable rules on student discipline; admission is a privilege, not a right, subject to academic and disciplinary standards. Applied: U.P.'s suspension of Nadal and its refusal to issue a good moral character certificate and transcript until reimbursement were within its disciplinary power, and courts should not substitute their judgment.
• Due Process in Administrative Student Discipline — Due process in student disciplinary proceedings requires notice and opportunity to be heard at the administrative stages, but not necessarily notice to the student of every BOR meeting where the case is on the agenda; the student is not a party to BOR deliberations. Applied: Nadal had due process up to the March 28 meeting, and no rule required notice to him of the March 29 BOR meeting.
• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Proceedings — Administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings require only substantial evidence, meaning more than a mere scintilla or relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other equally reasonable minds might differ. Applied: Nadal's certification and application omissions sufficiently proved the withholding of his mother's income.
• Conditional Votes Do Not Produce a Final Decision — A vote made conditional on future verification does not constitute a final verdict; the decision becomes final only when the condition is resolved and the votes are counted accordingly. Applied: the March 28 BOR meeting produced no final verdict because three votes were conditional; the March 29 meeting was the final decision.
• Mandamus Will Not Control Discretionary Academic Decisions — Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases and requires a clear and certain legal right; it will not lie against an official or agency whose duty involves discretion or judgment. Applied: the RTC should not have assumed jurisdiction over Nadal's mandamus petition or enjoined the BOR's suspension.
• Real Party in Interest — A real party in interest is one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or is entitled to the avails of the suit; the interest must be material, not mere interest in the question involved. Applied: the BOR had a material interest in enforcing student discipline, and Nadal was estopped from challenging petitioners' personality after naming them below.

• "At the risk of being repetitious, the matter of admission to a University is encompassed by the right of academic freedom." — The SC anchored the University's disciplinary power over Nadal in academic freedom, which includes admission and student discipline.
• "In any event it is gross error to equate due process in the instant case with the sending of notice of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting to respondent." — The SC rejected Nadal's due process argument based on lack of notice of the March 29 BOR meeting.
• "Unlike in criminal cases which require proof beyond reasonable doubt as basis for a judgment, in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is required, that which means more than a mere scintilla or relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds equally reasonable might conceivably opine otherwise." — The SC used the substantial evidence standard to uphold the BOR's finding of dishonesty.
• "Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the petitioner being required." — The SC held that the RTC should not have assumed jurisdiction over Nadal's mandamus petition.

• Ateneo de Manila University vs. Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, G.R. No. 99327, May 27, 1993 — Followed; held that admission and discipline are within academic freedom and courts should not interfere.
• Garcia vs. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, L-40779, November 28, 1975, 68 SCRA 277 — Followed; academic freedom includes the school's choice of students and determination of aims and objectives.
• Non vs. Dames II, G.R. No. 89317, 185 SCRA 523 — Distinguished; involved refusal to re-enroll students for mass actions and a collision with free expression, unlike Nadal's disciplinary suspension where due process was observed until March 28.
• University of Pangasinan Faculty Union vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 64821-23, January 29, 1993 — Followed; mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases and requires a clear legal right.
• Calderon vs. Solicitor General, G.R. Nos. 103752-53, November 25, 1992, 215 SCRA 876, 882 — Followed; mandamus is not available against an official whose duty requires discretion.
• Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 90667, November 5, 1991, 203 SCRA 310, 324 — Cited; definition of real party in interest.
• Gan Hock vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 70648, May 20, 1991, 197 SCRA 223, 230 — Cited; same real-party-in-interest rule.
• Lansang vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-33964, December 11, 1971, 42 SCRA 480 — Cited; substantial evidence standard in administrative proceedings.

• Section 7, U.P. Charter (Act 1870) — All process against the BOR shall be served on the president or secretary; applied to name Dr. Caoili as petitioner and allow Dr. Abueva to verify the petition.
• Section 11, University Code — Same service rule; applied with the U.P. Charter to uphold petitioners' personality.
• Section 2(a), Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline (now paragraph (i), Section 2, as amended June 25, 1992) — Punishes deliberate falsification or suppression/withholding of material information required in the STFAP application; applied to Nadal's withholding of his mother's income.
• Canon I, Rule 1.01 and Canon 7, Rule 7.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Require lawyers not to engage in dishonest conduct and to be answerable for false statements or suppression of material facts in bar admission; cited to stress the honesty required of law students.
• Education Act of 1982 — Students have the right to choose their field of study and continue to graduation, subject to existing curricula and academic and disciplinary standards; cited in Ateneo to show that the right is not absolute.