View full case

CUDIA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PMA

FACTS:

Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia was a member of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 and was expected to graduate as the class salutatorian and receive the Philippine Navy Saber. On November 14, 2013, after a lesson examination for Operations Research (OR432) under Dr. Maria Monica C. Costales, Cadet Cudia was reported late by Professor Juanita Berong by two minutes for his subsequent ENG412 class, which was scheduled right after OR432. Consequently, Cadet Cudia received a delinquency report (DR) five days later, to which he explained that he came directly from OR432 which had been dismissed a bit late.

On December 19, 2013, Major Rommel Dennis Hindang, the Company Tactical Officer, gave Cadet Cudia a penalty of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours based on Dr. Costales' statement that she never dismissed her class late and adherence to an early dismissal protocol. Upon Cadet Cudia's request for reconsideration, Major Hindang conducted further inquiry and maintained the penalty, leading Cadet Cudia to officially appeal on January 24, 2014.

Around the same time, Major Hindang reported Cadet Cudia to the Honor Committee (HC) for violation of the Honor Code, alleging lying due to the inconsistency in Cadet Cudia's explanation. During the formal investigation, multiple cadets, including Cudia and his classmates, testified, along with consultations to Dr. Costales, which emphasized that no late dismissal occurred. The HC’s subsequent vote resulted in a guilty verdict.

Following procedures, on January 24, 2014, Cadet Cudia appealed the HC’s decision. Despite ensuing extensions and requests for documentation to support his defense, the punishments—his separation from PMA—continued through reviews and affirmations by the CRAB and the PMA authorities. Subsequent reports and findings, including from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), suggested due process violations and recommended Cadet Cudia's exoneration, yet were not adopted by the PMA. The case drew extensive procedural and legal scrutiny, culminating in a confirmation of Cadet Cudia’s dismissal by the Office of the President on June 11, 2014.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), the Honor Committee, and the Cadet Review and Appeals Board (CRAB) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia from the Academy in utter disregard of his right to due process.

  2. Whether the PMA, the Honor Committee, and the CRAB committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia lied, thereby violating the Honor Code.

  3. Whether the result of the fact-finding investigation conducted by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) is of such great weight and persuasive nature that it should affect the court's ruling.

RULING:

  1. On procedural grounds

    • The petition for mandamus is improper since it cannot compel the performance of a discretionary duty.

    • The issues presented do not purely require factual determinations but involve significant legal questions such as due process rights of a military cadet.

    • The court rejected the argument of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies because the appeal to the President has already been resolved.

  2. On substantive grounds

    • The court held that the dismissal proceedings against Cadet Cudia followed due process, including informing him of charges, giving him an opportunity to defend and present evidence, and undergoing multiple levels of review and reinvestigation.

    • Cadet Cudia's right to counsel was not violated as it is not imperative in non-criminal administrative investigations.

    • The court found no grave abuse of discretion in the finding that Cadet Cudia lied and thus violated the Honor Code, supporting this conclusion with evidence and the absence of irregularities in the proceedings.

    • The court affirmed that the penalty of dismissal from the PMA for violation of the Honor Code was not arbitrary or unfair but fell within the PMA’s discretion under its academic freedom.

    • The findings and recommendations of the CHR are not binding or conclusive on the court, which maintains its own judicial power.

  3. On the findings of the CHR

  • The CHR's findings are recommendatory and do not bind the court.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Due Process The essence of due process in administrative proceedings is notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The procedural standards for administrative due process do not equate to those in judicial trials.

  2. Mandamus A writ of mandamus will only lie to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary act.

  3. Academic Freedom Higher education institutions have the discretion to impose disciplinary measures, and this discretion should not be interfered with unless there is a clear showing of abuse.

  4. Fact-Finding by Administrative Tribunals Findings of fact by administrative bodies are respected and generally given finality by the courts unless there is clear evidence of lack of support, collusion, or grave abuse of discretion.

  5. Role of CHR The Commission on Human Rights can investigate human rights violations but does not have adjudicative powers akin to a court; its findings are recommendatory in nature.

  6. Quibbling as Lying Quibbling, or providing half-truths with the intent to mislead, is considered lying under the Honor Code.

SO ORDERED.