villar v tip

7/30/2019 Villar v Tip

1/6

1

EN BANC[G.R. No. 69198. April 17, 1985.]

VENECIO VILLAR, INOCENCIO F. RECITIS, NOVERTO

BARRETO, RUFINO G. SALCON, JR., EDGARDO DELEON, JR., REGLOBEN LAXAMANA, and ROMEOGUILATCO, JR., petitioners, vs. TECHNOLOGICALINSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES (TIP), DEMETRIO A.QUIRINO, JR., in his capacity as Chairman of the Boardof TIP, TERESITA U. QUIRINO, in her capacity asPresident of TIP, and OSCAR M. SOLIVEN, in his

capacity as Vice-President/Dean for Students andAlumni Affairs of TIP, respondents.

Daniel M. Malabonga and Edgardo R. Abaya forpetitioners.Magno & Salita Law Office for respondents.

D E C I S I O N

FERNANDO, J p:

The crucial question in this petition, inappropriatelyentitled "extraordinary legal and equitable remedieswith prayer for preliminary mandatory injunction,"

which this Court considered as a special civil actionfor certiorari and prohibition, is whether or not theexercise of the freedom of assembly on the part ofcertain students of respondent Technological Instituteof the Philippines could be a basis for their beingbarred from enrollment. The answer is supplied byour decision in Malabanan v. Ramento, 1 where it

was held that respect for the constitutional rights ofpeaceable assembly and free speech calls for anegative answer. If that were all then, the petitioners2 are entitled to the remedy prayed for. There is,however, this other circumstance to be taken intoconsideration. In the opposition to the petition for


2/6

2

preliminary mandatory injunction, reference wasmade to the academic records of petitioners. Two ofthe petitioners, Rufino G. Salcon, Jr., 3 and Romeo L.Guilatco, Jr., 4 had only one failing grade each, with

the first having failed in only one subject in eithersemester of 1984-1985 schoolyear and the secondhaving failed in only one subject, having passed ineight other subjects in the 1984-1985 schoolyear.Petitioner Venecio Villar failed in two subjects butpassed in four subjects in the first semester of theacademic year, 1983-1984. 5 Petitioner Inocencio F.

Recitis 6 passed all his subjects in the first semesterof 1983-1984 schoolyear and had one failing gradeduring its second semester. He had two failing gradesduring the first semester of 1984-1985 schoolyear.Petitioner Noverto Barreto, 7 had five failing gradesin the first semester of schoolyear 1983-1984, sixfailing grades in the second semester of the same

schoolyear, and six failing grades in the first semesterof 1984-1985 schoolyear. Petitioner Edgardo de Leon,

Jr., 8 had three failing grades, one passing grade andone subject dropped in the first semester ofschoolyear 1984-1985. Petitioner Regloben Laxamana9 had five failing grades with no passing grade in thefirst semester of 1984-1985 schoolyear. Petitioners

Barreto, de Leon, Jr. and Laxamana could be deniedenrollment in view of such failing grades. Respondenteducational institution is under no obligation to admitthem this coming academic year. The constitutionalprovision on academic freedom enjoyed byinstitutions of higher learning justifies such refusal.10

Petitioners Venecio Villar, Rufino G. Salcon, Jr., RomeoL. Guilatco, Jr. and Inocencio F. Recitis are entitled tothe writs of certiorari and prohibition.


3/6

3

1. In the aforementioned Malabanan v.Ramento decision, this Court held: "As isquite clear from the opinion in Reyes v.Bagatsing, the invocation of the right to

freedom of peaceable assembly carries withit the implication that the right to freespeech has likewise been disregarded. Bothare embraced in the concept of freedom ofexpression, which is identified with theliberty to discuss publicly and truthfully, anymatter of public interest without censorship

or punishment and which 'is not to belimited, much less denied, except on ashowing . . . of a clear and present danger ofa substantive evil that the state has a rightto prevent.'" 11 An equally relevant excerptfrom the opinion therein follows: "Petitionersinvoke their rights to peaceable assembly

and free speech, they are entitled to do so.They enjoy like the rest of the citizens thefreedom to express their views andcommunicate their thoughts to thosedisposed to listen in gatherings such as washeld in this case. They do not, to borrowfrom the opinion of Justice Fortas in Tinker v.

Des Moines Community School District, 'shedtheir constitutional rights to freedom ofspeech or expression at the schoolhousegate.'" 12 Petitioners, therefore, have avalid cause for complaint if the exercise ofthe constitutional rights to free speech andpeaceable assembly was visited by their

expulsion from respondent College.

2. What cannot be stressed too sufficiently isthat among the most important social,economic, and cultural rights is the right toeducation not only in the elementary and


4/6

4

high school grades but also on the collegelevel. The constitutional provision as to theState maintaining "a system of free publicelementary education and, in areas where

finances permit, establish and maintain asystem of free public education" 13 up tothe high school level does not per se excludethe exercise of that right in colleges anduniversities. It is only at the most a reflectionof the lack of sufficient funds for such a dutyto be obligatory in the case of students in

the colleges and universities. As far as theright itself is concerned, not theeffectiveness of the exercise of such rightbecause of the lack of funds, Article 26 ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rightsprovides: "Everyone has the right toeducation. Education shall be free, at least in

the elementary and fundamental stages.Elementary education shall be compulsory.

Technical and professional education shallbe made generally available and highereducation shall be equally accessible to allon the basis of merit." 14

3. It is quite clear that while the right to collegeeducation is included in the social, economic,and cultural rights, it is equally manifest thatthe obligation imposed on the State is notcategorical, the phrase used being"generally available" and higher education,while being "equally accessible to all should

be on the basis of merit." To that extent,therefore, there is justification for excludingthree of the aforementioned petitionersbecause of their marked academicdeficiency.


5/6

5

4. The academic freedom enjoyed by"institutions of higher learning" includes theright to set academic standards to determineunder what circumstances failing grades

suffice for the expulsion of students. Once ithas done so, however, that standard shouldbe followed meticulously. It cannot beutilized to discriminate against thosestudents who exercise their constitutionalrights to peaceable assembly and freespeech. If it does so, then there is a

legitimate grievance by the students thusprejudiced, their right to the equal protectionclause 15 being disregarded.

5. While the dispositive portion refers only topetitioners of record, the doctrineannounced in this case should apply to all

other students similarly situated. That way,there should not be any need for a party toapply to this Court for the necessary redress.

WHEREFORE, the writ of certiorari is granted topetitioners Venecio Villar, Inocencio F. Recitis, RufinoG. Salcon, Jr. and Romeo Guilatco, Jr. to nullify the

action taken by respondents in violation of theirconstitutional rights. The writ of prohibition is likewisegranted to such petitioners to enjoin respondentsfrom acts of surveillance, black-listing, suspensionand refusal to allow them to enroll in the comingacademic year 1985-1986, if so minded. The petitionis dismissed as to Noverto Barreto, Edgardo de Leon,

Jr., and Regloben Laxamana. No costs.

Teehankee, Makasiar, Aquino, Abad Santos, Melencio-Herrera, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., De la Fuente, Cuevasand Alampay, JJ., concur.Plana, J., took no part.


6/6

6

Concepcion Jr., and Escolin JJ., are on leave.

villar v tip

Documents