FACTS:

In 1991, the Aquila Legis, a fraternity at the Ateneo Law School, held initiation rites for students interested in joining. As a result of these rites, a freshman named Leonardo Villa died from serious physical injuries, and another student named Bienvenido Marquez was hospitalized for acute renal failure. The Dean of the law school created an Investigating Committee to look into the circumstances surrounding Villa's death. The committee found a prima facie case against the respondent students for violating the school's Rule No. 3 on Discipline, which prohibits participation in hazing activities. The students were required to file written answers to the charges, and a Disciplinary Board was created to hear their case. The students requested copies of the evidence against them and requested that the investigation be held in abeyance, but their requests were denied. They were scheduled to appear before the Disciplinary Board for a hearing, but their counsel requested a postponement. The students were ultimately directed to appear for clarificatory questions.

The respondents in this case are students from Ateneo Law School who were charged with violating Rule No. 3 of the Ateneo Law School Rules on Discipline, which prohibits participation in hazing activities. The school's Disciplinary Board conducted hearings and found the respondents guilty of hazing based on their participation as master auxiliaries or "auxies" during the initiation rites of Aquila Legis. The Board determined that the respondents had a supportive role in the hazing activities and did not prevent further physical punishment on the neophytes. However, due to lack of unanimity among the Board members on the penalty of dismissal, the imposition of the penalty was left to the University Administration. The Dean of the Law School waived her prerogative to review the decision and left the decision of whether to expel the respondents to the President of the University. In a resolution, the President of the University accepted the factual findings of the Board and imposed the penalty of dismissal on all the respondents. Two of the respondents, Abas and Mendoza, were excluded from the resolution as they had not yet submitted their case to the Board. The respondents filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Regional Trial Court of Makati, alleging lack of due process in their dismissal. The court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the petitioners from dismissing the respondents and conducting further hearings. After the temporary restraining order lapsed, the Dean created a Special Board to investigate the charges against Abas and Mendoza, prompting the respondents to file a supplemental petition to include the members of the Special Board as additional respondents.

The case involves a petition questioning the order of a judge to reinstate students who were expelled from Ateneo de Manila University. The judge granted the students' prayer and ordered the university to reinstate them and conduct special examinations in lieu of the final exams they allegedly were not allowed to take. The Special Board investigating the students subsequently imposed the penalty of dismissal and directed their names to be dropped from the university's roll of students. The judge then issued a writ of preliminary injunction upon the students' posting of a bond. The petitioner argues that the judge gravely abused his discretion in ordering the readmission of the students as they were not denied due process in the investigation of the charges against them. The petitioner argues that the case of Guzman v. National University, which deals with the minimum standards for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, is more applicable to this case than the Ang Tibay case.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent students were denied their right to procedural due process in the investigation and expulsion proceedings.

2. Whether the Ang Tibay or Guzman case is applicable in the present case.

3. Whether the minimum standards for disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions, as stated in the Guzman case, were met.

4. Whether the respondent students were denied their right to cross-examine.

5. Whether the investigating committee failed to consider the evidence presented by the respondent students.

6. Whether the charge of hazing was adequately defined and whether the respondent students were furnished with copies of the Ateneo Law School Catalogue.

7. Whether the petitioners can file the instant petition without first filing a motion for reconsideration before the trial court.

8. Whether the respondent students have been afforded procedural due process prior to their dismissal from the petitioner university.

9. Whether the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was justified.

10. Whether academic freedom covers both individual and institutional aspects.

11. Whether academic freedom extends to students, teachers, and researchers.

12. Whether private schools have the right to establish rules and regulations for the admission and discipline of students.

13. Whether students have a right to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and academic standards.

14. Whether or not the order reinstating the respondent students into the petitioner university should be reversed.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court disagrees that the respondent students were denied their right to procedural due process. Their rights in the school disciplinary proceedings were meticulously respected by the petitioners.

2. The Guzman case is more applicable to the present case as it specifically deals with the minimum standards for disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions.

3. The minimum standards set in the Guzman case were met as the respondent students were informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them, had the right to answer the charges with the assistance of counsel, were informed of the evidence against them, had the right to adduce evidence in their behalf, and the evidence was duly considered by the investigating committee.

4. The right to cross-examine is not necessary in disciplinary cases involving students like the present case.

5. The investigating committee did consider the evidence presented by the respondent students.

6. The charge of hazing did not need to be explicitly defined, and the respondent students were not required to be furnished with copies of the Ateneo Law School Catalogue. The charge in disciplinary cases involving students does not need the precision of a criminal information or complaint.

7. The Court held that an exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies applies in this case since the issue involves a question of law. Therefore, the petitioners are allowed to file the instant petition without first filing a motion for reconsideration before the trial court.

8. The Court determined that the respondent students have been afforded procedural due process prior to their dismissal from the petitioner university.

9. The Court justified the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) since the immediate reinstatement of the respondent students who have been found to have violated the petitioner university's disciplinary rules and standards would undermine the authority of the school administration and seriously impair the university's academic freedom.

10. Academic freedom covers both individual and institutional aspects. The individual aspect includes who may teach and how to teach, while the institutional aspect includes what shall be taught and who may be admitted to study.

11. Academic freedom extends to students, teachers, and researchers.

12. Private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the admission, discipline, and promotion of students.

13. While students have a right to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula, this right is subject to the established academic and disciplinary standards of the institution.

14. The Supreme Court held that the order of the trial court reinstating the respondent students into the petitioner university should be reversed. The decision of the Special Board dismissing the respondent students is affirmed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Procedural due process in school disciplinary proceedings requires notice, opportunity to answer the charges, assistance of counsel if desired, the right to adduce evidence, and consideration of the evidence by the investigating committee. (Guzman v. National University)

• Disciplinary cases involving students do not need the same proceedings and hearings as those in court cases. (Alcuaz v. PSBA, Q.C. Branch)

• Disciplinary charges against students do not require the precision of a criminal information or complaint. (Non v. Dames II)

• Hazing as a ground for disciplining a student can be justified if it passes the test of reasonableness and absence of malice.

• The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies does not apply when the case involves a question of law.

• Academic freedom encompasses the freedoms of thought, speech, expression, and the press, as well as the right of individuals in university communities to investigate, pursue, and discuss ideas free from interference or pressure.

• Academic freedom is best exercised judiciously and should not degenerate into unbridled license.

• Assuring a measure of independence through guarantees of autonomy and security of tenure is essential to protect the individual aspect of academic freedom.

• Academic freedom encompasses both individual and institutional aspects.

• Academic freedom is enjoyed by students, teachers, and researchers.

• Private schools have the right to establish rules and regulations for the admission and discipline of students.

• Students have a right to freely choose their field of study, subject to existing curricula and academic standards.

• A religious education inculcates duty and reverence.

• The maintenance of a morally conducive and orderly educational environment is important in educational institutions.

• There must be congruence between the offense committed and the sanction imposed.

• The penalty of dismissal can be imposed for serious offenses.

• The imposition of nominal penalties, such as reprimand or suspension, may not be appropriate for vicious acts committed.

• Section 146 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides authority and justification for the imposition of dismissal as a penalty.