UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA AZUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of Antonio…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 100588
- Promulgated: 1994-03-07
- Ponente: Nocon, J.
Doctrine
Mandamus is not available to control or review the exercise of discretion or to compel performance of non‑ministerial, academic decisions; it requires a clear legal right and an imperative ministerial duty.
A private school's reasonable academic regulations aimed at producing competent professionals are within the university's rights under the academic freedom clause and may justify refusal of re-admission for academic deficiencies.
Facts
Third-year Nursing students failed to meet the school's retention policy (minimum 80% in any major nursing subject and in two minor subjects) and were refused re-admission by the university.
The students filed a petition for mandamus seeking re-admission; the Court of Appeals ordered their re-admission as fourth-year students for school year 1991-1992, which respondents appealed.
Before the CA decision, petitioners enrolled and later graduated from another nursing school, and they moved to dismiss the appeal as moot and academic.
The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the Court of Appeals decision and reinstated the Regional Trial Court order denying mandamus.
Issues
Whether mandamus will lie to compel a private university to re-admit students who failed to meet the school's academic retention requirements.
Whether the university's refusal to re-admit students is protected by the academic freedom clause of the Constitution and thus beyond mandamus relief.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED: the Court set aside the Court of Appeals decisions and reinstated the Regional Trial Court order; mandamus will not lie to compel re-admission based on academic deficiencies.
The Supreme Court found that the university's refusal to re-admit on academic grounds falls within its constitutional academic freedom and is not subject to mandamus compulsion.
Keywords
G.R. No. 100588, retention policy, Section IV, paragraph 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232, Article XIV, Section 5(3) of the 1987 Constitution, petition for mandamus, academic deficiency, Section 13(2) of Education Act of 1982, right to academic freedom, private educational institution, ministerial duty, Agreement of Admission, academic freedom clause, disciplinary and academic rules, Magtibay vs. Garcia L-28971, Tangonan vs. Pano 137 SCRA 245, equitable estoppel, school, students, university