Dean Marita Reyes and UP Medicine Faculty v. CA, UP Board of Regents

Facts:

·          Parties to this case are students to the UP Medicine obtained scores higher than 70% in the NMAT which was the cutoff score by the UPCM Faculty in 1986 which was approved by the University Council. However, their scores were lower than the 90% cut-off score for 1987.

·          At the time the students took the NMAT, the new UPCM Faculty prescribed NMAT cut-off score of 90 percentile was without the UC'S approval.

·          The students filed a petition for mandamus with the RTC. On June 11, 1987, the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction for their admission.

·          UPCM’s petition in SC was dismissed for lack of merit. Hence, the students were admitted to the UPCM and passed three years in the college.

·          On 1990, the students, burdened with "three agonizing years of uncertain relationship in the College" wrote a letter to the UPCM Faculty where they manifested:

o    they believed the issue was simply on the question of observance of the proper procedure in implementing admission requirements;

o    that they would leave to the Faculty the determination of humanitarian consideration of their case;

o    that they apologized for offending the Faculty and that they would like to appeal for a chance to remain in the college

·          The RTC dismissed the case. However, the UPCM Faculty denied the appeal of the students because they were not qualified for admission to the UPCM.

·          As a result, the students filed with the RTC a MR its order of dismissal. The RTC ordered the admission of the students.

·          The BOR (1031st meeting) resolved to approve the admission of the students in the interest of justice and equity and to order the petitioners to admit them

·          UPCM refused to follow the BOR directive. The UP President issued a formal charge of Grave Misconduct and  issued an Order for their Preventive Suspension against the Dean and Secretary.

Issue: WON the Med Faculty can enforce the cut-off that they set without the approval of University Council. NO.

Ratio:

·          The powers vested in the ff

o    BOR:  governance and the general powers of administration of the university [UP Charter (Act No. 1870)]

o    University Council: the power to fix the admission requirements to any college in the university (sec. 9). [UP Charter (Act No. 1870)]

o    College Faculty:  the power to determine the entrance requirements of the college subject to the approval of the autonomous UC. [University Code, Title II, Chapter 43, Article 324]

·          Any entrance requirement that may be imposed by the College Faculty must bear the UC's approval.

·          The fact that the students knew of the 90 percentile NMAT cut-off score would not cure this defect. It follows then that the previously approved NMAT cut-off score of 70 percentile remains the prescribed passing grade.

·          When the BOR retained the cut off score it did not exercise the power to prescribe the entrance requirements. It merely upheld the power of the University Council under the law to fix the requirements for admission to the UPCM.

·          The UPCM cannot invoke that it was given the authority to decide by the UC. What was actually approved in said meeting of the College of Medicine Faculty are: "NMAT has replaced CMET" and "It was moved by Dr. Talusan and seconded by Dr. Reodica that 70% be the cut off point of NMAT for all categories. The motion was carried without any objection.

·          The clause "as prescribed by the College of Medicine faculty" cannot be interpreted as a delegation of authority to prescribe the written test(s) of achievement without the approval of the University Council. The clause is worded in the past tense and can only refer to an accomplished act of the faculty.

·          Petitioners also invoke that the students themselves judicially confessed that they have no right to admission based on the letter that they sent

·          SC: The student's aforesaid feeling does not amount to a categorical admission of the absence of a legal right. Its predicated more on an overwhelming sense of hopelessness because of the antagonistic treatment of the faculty towards the students.

·          The faculty cannot invoke academic freedom because the under the UP Charter, the power to fix the requirements for admission to any college of the university is vested in the University Council.