Sunday, September 15, 2013

Isabelo v. Perpetual Help College of Rizal and DECS [1993]


Facts:
·          A student, Manuelito Isabelo, Jr., filed the instant petition for mandamus with prayer for a writ of mandamus addressed to DECS to implement its order to re-admit him as a senior graduating student of Perpetual Help College of Rizal (PHCR)
·          Manuelito was enrolled at the Perpetual Help College of Rizal for BS Criminology. He was elected Public Relations Officer ("PRO") of the Supreme Student Council
·          He was invited to attend a meeting with PHCR officials on 08 May 1991. He was asked by the VP for Academic Affairs, Dr. Grace De Leon, to sign Resolution No. 105 that would implement a 20% tuition fee increase for the school year 1991-1992.
·          Manuelito refused to sign the resolution; instead he asked for a 2-week period to take the matter up with fellow officers.
·          Since, the administration assured that the request of the student council would be considered favorably, the petitioner finally signed Resolution No. 105.
·          PHCR announced that it will increase tuition fees in all levels. The student council filed with the DECS a motion for reconsideration. DECS held the advised that the "collection of the increase (should) be held in abeyance pending the resolution of (the) matter."
·          The administration dropped Manuelito from PHCR's list of students because of the following reasons:
o    Non compliance of CMT requirement as per DECS Order No. 9, S. 1990 and DECS Memorandum No. 80, S. 1991 and PHCR Internal Memo. No. 891-007;
o    No NCEE during the admission in the BS Criminology course;
o    Official Admission Credential not yet submitted;
o    Void declaration of CMT subjects (MS 11, 12, 21 and 22)
·          He took special training during the semestral break, and he was able to pass it, but PHCR still refused to give him that accreditation, insisting that he by then had ceased to be a student of PHCR.
·          Manuelito wrote to DECS, which in turn sent their letter to PHCR ordering that students should be allowed to continue their classes pending the resolution. PHCR did not comply with the directive.
·          Manuelito: Real reason PHCR has voided his enrollment is his active participation in opposing PHCR's application for tuition fee increase with the DECS.
·          PHCR: invokes "academic freedom" in dropping the petitioner from its roll of students. HE been allowed to enroll "conditionally" pending the completion of his remedial classes in CMT, in which he failed.
Issue: WON PHCR may drop Manuelito from the list of students. CASE REMANDED.
·          In Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology: admission to an institution of higher learning is discretionary upon the school and that such an admission is a mere privilege, rather than a right, on the part of the student.
·          In Ateneo de Manila University vs. Capulon: the term "academic freedom" "the freedom to determine on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught (and) how it shall be taught," but likewise "who may be admitted to study."  
·          However academic freedom is not an unabridged license. It is a privilege that assumes a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly.
·          In Non vs. Dames II: abandoned Alcuaz vs. PSBA, (that enrollment of a student is a semester-to-semester contract, and that the school may not be compelled to renew the contract) by recognizing instead the right of a student to be enrolled for the entire period in order to complete his course. We have also stressed that the contract between the school and the student, imbued, as it is, with public interest, is not an ordinary contract.
·          Expulsion is disproportionate to his deficiencies in his CMT course. The circumstances show that the PHCR has strongly been influenced by his participation in questioning PHCR's application for tuition fee increase.

·          However DECS should determine whether the petitioner really deserves to be in senior class or has a number of school deficiencies to overcome, as the respondent school counters. 

0 comments:

Post a Comment