4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals
*
G.R. No. 134625. August 31, 1999.

UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES BOARD OF

REGENTS, CHANCELLOR ROGER POSADAS, DR.
EMERLINDA ROMAN, DEAN CONSUELO PAZ, DR.
ISAGANI MEDINA, DR. MARIA SERENA DIOKNO, DR.
OLIVIA CAOILI, DR. FRANCISCO NEMENZO II, DEAN
PACIFICO AGABIN, CARMELITA GUNO and MARICHU
LAMBINO, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS
and AROKIASWAMY WILLIAM MARGARET CELINE,
respondents.

Academic Freedom; Schools and Universities; Actions; Words

and Phrases; Mandamus, Defined; The writ of mandamus is not
available to restrain an institution of higher learning from the
exercise of its academic freedom.Mandamus is a writ
commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the act
required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which
such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. In University of
the Philippines Board of Regents v. LigotTelan, this Court ruled
that the writ was not available to restrain U.P. from the exercise
of its academic freedom.
Same; Same; Due Process; A party who has availed of the
opportunity to present his position cannot tenably claim to have
been denied due process.As the foregoing narration of facts in
this case shows, however, various committees had been formed to
investigate the charge that private respondent had committed
plagiarism and, in all the investigations held, she was heard in
her defense. Indeed, if any criticism may be made of the
university proceedings before private respondent was finally
stripped of her degree, it is that there were too many committee
and individual investigations conducted, although all resulted in

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

a finding that private respondent committed dishonesty in

submitting her doctoral dissertation on the basis of which she was
conferred the Ph.D. degree. Indeed, in administrative

____________________

* SECOND DIVISION.

405

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 405

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of

Appeals

proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity

to explain ones side of a controversy or a chance to seek
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. A party who
has availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot
tenably claim to have been denied due process.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative Law; Due process in an
administrative context does not require trialtype proceedings
similar to those in the courts of justice.It is not tenable for
private respondent to argue that she was entitled to have an
audience before the Board of Regents. Due process in an
administrative context does not require trialtype proceedings
similar to those in the courts of justice. It is noteworthy that the
U.P. Rules do not require the attendance of persons whose cases
are included as items on the agenda of the Board of Regents.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Disciplinary cases involving
students need not necessarily include the right to cross
examination.Nor indeed was private respondent entitled to be
furnished a copy of the report of the Zafaralla committee as part
of her right to due process. In Ateneo de Manila University v.
Capulong, we held: Respondent students may not use the
argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to see
and examine the written statements which became the basis of
petitioners February 14, 1991 order, they were denied procedural
due process. Granting that they were denied such opportunity,
the same may not be said to detract from the observance of due
process, for disciplinary cases involving students need not
necessarily include the right to cross examination. An
administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students
participation in a hazing activity need not be clothed with the
attributes of a judicial proceeding . . .

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

Same; Same; If an institution of higher learning can decide

who can and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also
determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of
being its graduates.Art. XIV, 5 (2) of the Constitution provides
that [a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of
higher learning. This is nothing new. The 1935 Constitution and
the 1973 Constitution likewise provided for the academic freedom
or, more precisely, for the institutional autonomy of universities
and institutions of higher learning. As pointed out by this Court
in Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of
Theology, it is a freedom granted to

406

406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of

Appeals

institutions of higher learning which is thus given a wide

sphere of authority certainly extending to the choice of students.
If such institution of higher learning can decide who can and who
cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can
confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates.
Same; Same; Where it is shown that the conferment of an
honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has
the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has
thus conferred.Where it is shown that the conferment of an
honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has
the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has
thus conferred. This freedom of a university does not terminate
upon the graduation of a student, as the Court of Appeals held.
For it is precisely the graduation of such a student that is in
question. It is noteworthy that the investigation of private
respondents case began before her graduation. If she was able to
join the graduation ceremonies on April 24, 1993, it was because
of too many investigations conducted before the Board of Regents
finally decided she should not have been allowed to graduate.
Same; Same; Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted
to institutions of higher learning, for the constitutional grant of
academic freedom is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or
in a grudging fashion.Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy
granted to institutions of higher learning, for the constitutional
grant of academic freedom, to quote again from Garcia v. Faculty
Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, is not to be
construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

Same; Same; University of the Philippines; If the conferment

of a degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is
also empowered, subject to the observance of due process, to
withdraw what it has granted without violating a students rights;
The pursuit of academic excellence is the universitys concernit
should be empowered, as an act of selfdefense, to take measures
to protect itself from serious threats to its integrity.Under the
U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the highest governing body
of the University of the Philippines. It has the power to confer
degrees upon the recommendation of the University Council. It
follows that if the conferment of a degree is founded on error or
fraud, the Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the
observance of due process, to with

407

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 407

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of

Appeals

draw what it has granted without violating a students rights. An

institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers
that an academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully
deserved. Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a
universitys highest academic degree upon an individual who has
obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of
academic excellence is the universitys concern. It should be
empowered, as an act of selfdefense, to take measures to protect
itself from serious threats to its integrity.
Same; Same; Same; Plagiarism; The Board of Regents may
withdraw a graduates doctorate if it has determined, after due
investigation, that she committed intellectual dishonesty in her
dissertation and she failed to refute the charges of plagiarism
against her.In the case at bar, the Board of Regents
determined, after due investigation conducted by a committee
composed of faculty members from different U.P. units, that
private respondent committed no less than ninety (90) instances
of intellectual dishonesty in her dissertation. The Board of
Regents decision to withdraw private respondents doctorate was
based on documents on record including her admission that she
committed the offense. On the other hand, private respondent was
afforded the opportunity to be heard and explain her side but
failed to refute the charges of plagiarism against her. Her only
claim is that her responses to the charges against her were not
considered by the Board of Regents before it rendered its decision.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

However, this claim was not proven. Accordingly, we must

presume regularity in the performance of official duties in the
absence of proof to the contrary.
Same; Same; Same; Same; In investigating charges of
plagiarism against a student who has already graduated, the
University of the Philippines could not be considered to be seeking
to discipline her but seeking to protect its academic integrity by
withdrawing from such graduate an academic degree she obtained
through fraud.As the abovequoted provision of 5 of the Rules
and Regulations indicates, the jurisdiction of the student
disciplinary tribunal extends only to disciplinary actions. In this
case, U.P. does not seek to discipline private respondent. Indeed,
as the appellate court observed, private respondent is no longer
within the ambit of disciplinary powers of the U.P. Private
respondent cannot even be punished since, as she claims, the
penalty for acts of dishonesty in administrative disciplinary
proceedings is suspension from the University

408

408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of

Appeals

for at least one year. What U.P., through the Board of Regents,
seeks to do is to protect its academic integrity by withdrawing
from private respondent an academic degree she obtained through
fraud.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for petitioners.
Public Attorneys Office for private respondent.

MENDOZA, J.:

For review
1
before the Court is the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CAG.R. SP No. 42788, dated December 16,
1997, which granted private respondents application for a
writ of mandatory injunction, and its resolution, dated July
13, 1998, denying petitioners motion for reconsideration.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Private respondent Arokiaswamy William Margaret
Celine is a citizen of India and holder of a Philippine
visitors visa. Sometime in April 1988, she enrolled in the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

doctoral program in Anthropology of the University of the

Philippines College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
(CSSP) in Diliman, Quezon City.
After completing the units of course work required in
her doctoral program, private respondent went on a two
year leave of absence to work as Tamil Programme
Producer of the Vatican Radio in the Vatican and as
General Office Assistant at the International Right to Life
Federation in Rome. She returned to the Philippines in
July 1991 to work on her dissertation entitled, Tamil
Influences in Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines.

_________________

1 Per Associate Justice Artemio G. Tuquero and concurred in by

Associate Justices Jorge S. Imperial and Eubulo G. Verzola.

409

409 VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

On December 22, 1992, Dr. Realidad S. Rolda, chairperson

of the U.P. Department of Anthropology, wrote a letter to
Dr. Maria Serena Diokno, CSSP Associate Dean and
Graduate Program Director, certifying that private
respondent had finished her dissertation and was ready for
her oral defense. Dr. Rolda suggested that the oral defense
be held on January 6, 1993 but, in a letter, dated February
2, 1993, Dr. Serena Diokno rescheduled it on February 5,
1993. Named as members of the dissertation panel were
Drs. E. Arsenio Manuel, Serafin Quiason, Sri Skandarajah,
Noel Teodoro, and Isagani Medina, the last included as the
deans representative.
After going over private respondents dissertation, Dr.
Medina informed CSSP Dean Consuelo JoaquinPaz that
there was a portion in private respondents dissertation
that was lifted, without proper acknowledgment, from
Balfours Cyclopaedia of India and Eastern and Southern
Asia (1967), volume I, pp. 392401 (3 v., Edward Balfour
1885 reprint) and from John Edyes article entitled
Description of the Various Classes of Vessels Constructed
and Employed by the Natives of the Coasts of Coromandel,
Malabar, and the Island of Ceylon for their Coasting
Navigation in the Royal Asiatic Society of Great
2
Britain
and Ireland Journal, volume I, pp. 114 (1833).

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

Nonetheless, private respondent was allowed to defend

her dissertation on February 5, 1993. Four (4) out of the
five (5) panelists gave private respondent a passing mark
for her oral defense by affixing their signatures on the
approval form. These were Drs. Manuel, Quiason,
Skandarajah, and Teodoro. Dr. Quiason added the
following qualification to his signature:

Ms. Arokiaswamy must incorporate the suggestions I made

3
during the successful defense of her Ph.D. thesis.

___________________

2 Stated as 1883 in the Petition for Certiorari.

3 Records, p. 26.

410

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

Dr. Medina did not sign the approval form but added the
following comment:

Pipirmahan ko ang pagsangayon/di pagsangayon kapag nakita

4
ko na ang mga revisions ng dissertation.

Dr. Teodoro added the following note to his signature:

Kailangang isagawa ang mga mahahalagang pagbabago at

5
ipakita sa panel ang bound copies.

In a letter, dated March 5, 1993 and addressed to her

thesis adviser, Dr. Manuel, private respondent requested a
meeting with the panel members, especially Dr. Medina, to
discuss the amendments suggested by the panel members
during the oral defense. The meeting was held at the deans
office with Dean Paz, private
6
respondent, and a majority of
the defense panel present. During the meeting, Dean Paz
remarked that a majority vote of the panel members was
sufficient for a student to pass, notwithstanding the failure
to obtain the consent of the Deans representative.
On March 24, 1993, the CSSP College Faculty Assembly
approved private respondents graduation pending
submission of final copies of her dissertation.
In April 1993, private respondent submitted copies of
her supposedly revised dissertation to Drs. Manuel,
Skandarajah, and Quiason, who expressed their assent to

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

the dissertation. Petitioners maintain, however, that

private respondent did not incorporate the revisions
suggested by the panel members in the final copies of her
dissertation.
Private respondent left a copy of her dissertation in Dr.
Teodoros office on April 15, 1993 and proceeded to submit
her dissertation to the CSSP without the approvals of Dr.
Medina

_______________

4Ibid.

5Supra, note 3.
6 Dr. Manuel Teodoro was absent during the meeting.

411

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 411

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

and Dr. Teodoro, relying on Dean Pazs March 5, 1993

statement.
Dr. Teodoro later indicated his disapproval,
7
while Dr.
Medina did not sign the approval form.
Dean Paz then accepted private respondents
dissertation in partial fulfillment of the course
requirements for the doctorate degree in Anthropology.
In a letter to Dean Paz, dated April 17, 1993, private
respondent expressed concern over matters related to her
dissertation. She sought to explain why the signature of
Dr. Medina was not affixed to the revision approval form.
Private respondent said that since she already had the
approval of a majority of the panel members, she no longer
showed her dissertation to Dr. Medina nor tried to obtain
the latters signature on the revision approval form. She
likewise expressed her disappointment over the CSSP
administration and charged Drs. Diokno and Medina with
maliciously working for the disapproval of her dissertation,
and further warned Dean Paz against encouraging
perfidious acts against her.
On April 17, 1993, the University Council met to
approve the list of candidates for graduation for the second
semester of school year 19921993. The list, which was
endorsed to the Board of Regents for final approval,
included private respondents name.
On April 21, 1993, Dean Paz sent a letter to Dr.
Milagros Ibe, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

requesting the exclusion of private respondents name from

the list of candidates for graduation, pending clarification
of the8 problems regarding her dissertation. Her letter
reads:

_________________

7 Records, p. 173.
8 Records, p. 39.

412

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

Abril 21, 1993

Dr. Milagros Ibe
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Unibersidad ng Pilipinas
Quezon Hall, Diliman, Q.C.
Mahal na Dr. Ibe,
Mahigpit ko pong hinihiling na hwag munang isama
ang pangalan ni Ms. Arokiaswam[y] William Margaret
Celine sa listahan ng mga bibigyan ng degri na Ph.D.
(Anthropology) ngayon[g] semester, dahil sa mga
malubhang bintang nya sa ilang myembro ng panel
para sa oral defense ng disertasyon nya at sa mga
akusasyon ng ilan sa mga ito sa kanya.
Naniniwala po kami na dapat mailinaw muna ang
ilang bagay bago makonfer ang degri kay Ms.
Arokiaswam[y]. Kelangan po ito para mapangalagaan
ang istandard ng pinakamataas na degree ng
Unibersidad.
(Sgd.)
CONSUELO JOAQUINPAZ, Ph.D.
Dekano

Apparently, however, Dean Pazs letter did not reach the

Board of Regents on time, because the next day, April 22,
1993, the Board approved the University Councils
recommendation for the graduation of qualified students,
including private respondent. Two days later, on April 24,
1993, private respondent graduated with the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy in Anthropology.
On the other hand, Dean Paz also wrote a letter to
private respondent, dated April 21, 1993, that she would
not be granted an academic clearance unless she
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

substantiated the accusations contained in her letter dated

April 17, 1993.
In her letter, dated April 27, 1993, private respondent
claimed that Dr. Medinas unfavorable attitude towards
her dissertation was a reaction to her failure to include him
and Dr. Francisco in the list of panel members; that she
made the revisions proposed by Drs. Medina and Teodoro
in the revised
413

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 413

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

draft of her dissertation; and that Dr. Diokno was guilty of

harassment.
In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, dated May 1, 1993,
Dr. Medina formally charged private respondent with
plagiarism and recommended
9
that the doctorate granted to
her be withdrawn.
On May 13, 1993, Dean Paz formed an ad hoc
committee, composed of faculty members from various
disciplines and chaired by Dr. Eva DukaVentura, to
investigate the plagiarism charge against private
respondent. Meanwhile, she recommended to U.P. Diliman
Chancellor, Dr. Emerlinda Roman, that the Ph.D. 10
degree
conferred on private respondent be withdrawn.
In a letter, dated June 7, 1993, Dean Paz 11
informed
private respondent of the charges against her.
On June 15, 1993, the Ventura Committee submitted a
report to Dean Paz, finding at least ninety (90) instances or
portions in private respondents thesis which were lifted
from sources without proper or due acknowledgment.
On July 28, 1993, the CSSP College Assembly
unanimously approved the recommendation to withdraw
private respondents doctorate degree and forwarded its
recommendation to the University Council. The University
Council, in turn, approved and endorsed the same
recommendation to the Board of Regents on August 16,
1993.
On September 6, 1993, the Board of Regents deferred
action on the recommendation 12
to study the legal
implications of its approval.
Meanwhile, in a letter, dated September 23, 1993, U.P.
Diliman Chancellor Emerlinda Roman summoned private
respondent to a meeting on the same day and asked her to
submit her written explanation to the charges against her.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

___________________

9 Rollo, pp. 201202.

10Id., p. 133.
11 Records, p. 346.
12Id., p. 179.

414

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents fvs. Court of
Appeals

During the meeting, Chancellor Roman informed private

respondent of the charges and provided her a 13 copy of the
findings of the investigating committee. Private
respondent, on the other hand, submitted her written
explanation in a letter dated September 25, 1993.
Another meeting was held on October 8, 1993 between
Chancellor Roman and private respondent to discuss her
answer to the charges. A third meeting was scheduled on
October 27, 1993 but private respondent did not attend it,
alleging that the Board of Regents had already decided her
case before she could be fully heard.
On October 11, 1993, private respondent wrote to Dr.
Emil Q. Javier, U.P. President, alleging that some
members of14the U.P. administration were playing politics
in her case. She sent another letter, dated December 14,
1993, to Dr. Armand Fabella, Chairman of the Board of
Regents, complaining that she had not been afforded due
process and claiming that U.P. could no longer withdraw
her degree since
15
her dissertation had already been accepted
by the CSSP.
Meanwhile, the U.P. Office of Legal Services justified
the position of the University Council in its report to the
Board of Regents. The Board of Regents, in its February 1,
1994 and March 24, 1994 meetings, further deferred action
thereon.
On July 11, 1994, private respondent sent a letter to the
Board of Regents requesting a reinvestigation of her case.
She stressed that under the Rules and Regulations on
Student Conduct and Discipline, it was the student
disciplinary tribunal which had jurisdiction to decide cases
of dishonesty and that the withdrawal of a degree already
conferred was not one of the authorized penalties which the
student disciplinary tribunal could impose.
On July 28, 1994, the Board of Regents decided to
release private respondents transcript of grades without

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

annotation

__________________

13 Records, p. 49.
14Id., p. 409.
15Id., pp. 403406.

415

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 415

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

although it showed that private respondent passed her

dissertation with 12 units of credit.
On August 17, 1994, Chancellor Roger Posadas issued
Administrative Order No. 9494 constituting a special
committee composed of senior faculty members from the
U.P. units outside Diliman to review the University
Councils recommendation to withdraw private
respondents degree. With the approval of the Board of
Regents and the U.P. Diliman Executive Committee,
Posadas created a fiveman committee, chaired by Dr.
Paulino B. Zafaralla, with members selected from a list of
nominees screened by Dr. Emerenciana Arcellana, then a
member of the Board of Regents. On August 31, 1994, the
members of the Zafaralla committee and private
respondent met at U.P. Los Baos.
Meanwhile, on August 23, 1994, the U.P. Diliman
Registrar released to private respondent a copy of her
transcript of grades and certificate of graduation.
In a letter to Chancellor Posadas, dated September 1,
1994, private respondent requested that the Zafaralla
committee be provided with copies of the U.P. Charter (Act
No. 1870), the U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student
Conduct and Discipline, her letterresponse to Chancellor
Roman, dated September 25, 1993, as well as all her other
communications.
On September 19, 1994, Chancellor Posadas obtained
the Zafaralla Committees report, signed by its chairman,
recommending the withdrawal of16 private respondents
doctorate degree. The report stated:

After going through all the pertinent documents of the case and
interviewing Ms. Arokiaswamy William, the following facts were
established:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

1. There is overwhelming evidence of massive lifting from a published

source word for word and, at times, paragraph by paragraph without any
acknowledgment of the source, even by a mere quotation mark. At least
22 counts of such documented liftings were identified by the Committee.

_________________

16 Rollo, p. 137.

416

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

These form part of the approximately ninety (90) instances

found by the Committee created by the Dean of the College and
subsequently verified as correct by the Special Committee. These
instances involved the following forms of intellectual dishonesty:
direct lifting/copying without acknowledgment, full/partial lifting
with improper documentation and substitution of terms or words
(e.g., Tamil in place of Sanskrit, Tamilization in place of
Indianization) from an acknowledged source in support of her
thesis (attached herewith is a copy of the documents for
reference); and

2. Ms. Arokiaswamy William herself admits of being guilty of the

allegation of plagiarism. Fact is, she informed the Special Committee
that she had been admitting having lifted several portions in her
dissertation from various sources since the beginning.

In view of the overwhelming proof of massive lifting and also

on the admission of Ms. Arokiaswamy William that she indeed
plagiarized, the Committee strongly supports the
recommendation of the U.P. Diliman Council to withdraw the
doctoral degree of Ms. Margaret Celine Arokiaswamy William.

On the basis of the report, the University Council, on

September 24, 1994, recommended to the Board of Regents
that private respondent be barred in the future from
admission to the University either as a student or as an
employee.
On January 4, 1995, the secretary of the Board 17
of
Regents sent private respondent the following letter:

4 January 1995
Ms. Margaret Celine Arokiaswamy William
Department of Anthropology
College of Social Sciences and Philosophy
U.P. Diliman, Quezon City
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

Dear Ms. Arokiaswamy William:

This is to officially inform you about the action
taken by the Board of Regents at its 1081st and
1082nd meetings held last 17

__________________

17 Records, p. 192.

417

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 417

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs.
Court of Appeals

November and 16 December 1994 regarding your case,

the excerpts from the minutes of which are attached
herewith.
Please be informed that the members present at the
1081st BOR meeting on 17 November 1994 resolved,
by a majority decision, to withdraw your Ph.D. degree
as recommended by the U.P. Diliman University
Council and as concurred with by the External Review
Panel composed of senior faculty from U.P. Los Baos
and U.P. Manila. These faculty members were chosen
by lot from names submitted by the University
Councils of U.P. Los Baos and U.P. Manila.
In reply to your 14 December 1994 letter requesting
that you be given a good lawyer by the Board, the
Board, at its 1082nd meeting on 16 December 1994,
suggested that you direct your request to the Office of
Legal Aid, College of Law, U.P. Diliman.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.)
VIVENCIO R. JOSE
Secretary of the University
and of the Board of Regents

On January 18, 1995, private respondent wrote a letter to

Commissioner Sedfrey Ordoez, Chairman of the
Commission 18on Human Rights, asking the commissions
intervention. In a letter, dated February 14, 1995, to
Secretary Ricardo Gloria, Chairman of the Board of
Regents, she asked for a reinvestigation of her case. She
also sought an audience with the Board of Regents and/or
the U.P. President, which request was denied by President
Javier, in a letter dated June 2, 1995.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

On August 10, 1995, private respondent then filed a

petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of
preliminary

___________________

18 Commissioner Ordoez sent a letter to the Board of Regents

requesting it to defer action on private respondents case until the latter
had been given the opportunity to be heard. U.P. President Emil Q. Javier
responded with a letter, dated February 17, 1995, assuring Commissioner
Ordoez that the decision on private respondents case was arrived at
after compliance with the requirements of due process.

418

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

mandatory injunction and damages, which was docketed as

Civil Case No. Q9524690 and assigned19 to Branch 81 of
the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. She alleged that
petitioners had unlawfully withdrawn her degree without
justification and without affording her procedural due
process. She prayed that petitioners be ordered to restore
her degree and to pay her P500,000.00 as moral and
exemplary damages and P1,500,000.00 as compensation for
lost earnings.
On August 6, 1996, the trial court, Branch 227, rendered
a decision
20
dismissing the petition for mandamus for lack of
merit. Private respondent appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which on December 16, 1997, reversed the lower
court. The dispositive
21
portion of the appellate courts
decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the court a quo is hereby reversed

and set aside. Respondents are ordered to restore to petitioner her
degree of Ph.D. in Anthropology.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.

Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend:

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW

IN GRANTING THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ORDERING
PETITIONERS TO RESTORE RESPONDENTS DOCTORAL
DEGREE.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF

LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE DOCTORAL DEGREE GIVEN
RESPONDENT BY U.P. CANNOT BE RECALLED WITHOUT
VIOLATING HER RIGHT TO ENJOYMENT OF
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND TO JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

__________________

19 It appears that the case was later transferred to Branch 227.

20 Rollo, pp. 8397.
21Id., p. 56.

419

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 419

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

III

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF

LAW IN DEPRIVING PETITIONERS OF THEIR RIGHT TO
22
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.

Petitioners argue that private respondent failed to show

that she had been unlawfully excluded from the use and
enjoyment of a right or office to which she is entitled so as
to justify the issuance of the writ of mandamus. They also
contend that she failed to prove that the restoration of her
degree is a ministerial duty of U.P. or that the withdrawal
of the degree violated her right to the enjoyment of
intellectual property.
On the other hand, private respondent, unassisted by
counsel, argue that petitioners acted arbitrarily and with
grave abuse of discretion in withdrawing her degree even
prior to verifying the truth of the plagiarism charge against
her; and that as her answer to the charges had not been
forwarded to the members of the investigating committees,
she was deprived of the opportunity to comment or refute
their findings.
In addition, private respondent maintains that
petitioners are estopped from withdrawing her doctorate
degree; that petitioners acted contrary to 9 of the U.P.
Charter and the U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student
Conduct and Discipline of the University, which according
to her, does not authorize the withdrawal of a degree as a
penalty for erring students; and that only the college

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

committee or the student disciplinary tribunal may decide

disciplinary cases, whose report must be signed by a
majority of its members.
We find petitioners contention to be meritorious.
Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal,
corporation, board or person to do the act required to be
done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of
an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes
another from the use and

___________________

22 Rollo, pp. 3334.

420

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is

entitled, there being no other plain, speedy,
23
and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. In University
24
of the
Philippines Board of Regents v. LigotTelan, this Court
ruled that the writ was not available to restrain U.P. from
the exercise of its academic freedom. In that case, a student
who was found guilty of dishonesty and ordered suspended
for one year by the Board of Regents, filed a petition for
mandamus and obtained from the lower court a temporary
restraining order stopping U.P. from carrying out the order
of suspension. In setting aside the TRO and ordering the
lower court to dismiss the students petition, this Court
said:

[T]he lower court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ
of preliminary injunction of May 29, 1993. The issuance of the
said writ was based on the lower courts finding that the
implementation of the disciplinary sanction of suspension on
Nadal would work injustice to the petitioner as it would delay
him in finishing his course, and consequently, in getting a decent
and good paying job. Sadly, such a ruling considers only the
situation of Nadal without taking into account the circumstances,
clearly of his own making, which led him into such a predicament.
More importantly, it has completely disregarded the overriding
issue of academic freedom which provides more than ample
justification for the imposition of a disciplinary sanction upon an
erring student of an institution of higher learning.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

From the foregoing arguments, it is clear that the lower court

should have restrained itself from assuming jurisdiction over the
petition filed by Nadal. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful
cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the
petitioner being required. It is of no avail against an official or
government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion
25
or judgment.

In this case, the trial court dismissed private respondents

petition precisely on grounds of academic freedom but the

___________________

23 RULES OF COURT, RULE 65, 3; Anchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman,

268 SCRA 301 (1997).
24 227 SCRA 342 (1993).
25Supra, at 361362.

421

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 421

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

Court of Appeals reversed holding that private respondent

was denied due process. It said:

It is worthy to note that during the proceedings taken by the

College Assembly culminating in its recommendation to the
University Council for the withdrawal of petitioners Ph.D.
degree, petitioner was not given the chance to be heard until after
the withdrawal of the degree was consummated. Petitioners
26
subsequent letters to the U.P. President proved unavailing.

As the foregoing narration of facts in this case shows,

however, various committees had been formed to
investigate the charge that private respondent had
committed plagiarism and, in all the investigations held,
she was heard in her defense. Indeed, if any criticism may
be made of the university proceedings before private
respondent was finally stripped of her degree, it is that
there were too many committee and individual
investigations conducted, although all resulted in a finding
that private respondent committed dishonesty in
submitting her doctoral dissertation on the basis of which
she was conferred the Ph.D. degree.
Indeed, in administrative proceedings, the essence of
due process is simply the opportunity to explain ones side
of a controversy or a chance to seek reconsideration of the
27
action or ruling complained of. A party who
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False has availed of 18/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313
27
action or ruling complained of. A party who has availed of
the opportunity to present his position
28
cannot tenably
claim to have been denied due process.
In this case, private respondent
29
was informed in writing
of the charges against her and afforded opportunities to
refute them. She was asked to submit her written
explanation,

__________________

26 Rollo, pp. 5455.

27 Helpmate, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No.
112323, July 28, 1997, 276 SCRA 315; M. Ramirez Industries v. The
Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. No. 89894, January
3, 1997, 266 SCRA 111.
28 Naguiat v. National Labor Relations Commission, 269 SCRA 564
(1997).
29 Records, pp. 4849.

422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals
30
which she forwarded on September 25, 1993. Private
respondent then met with the U.P. chancellor and the
members of the Zafaralla committee to discuss her case. In
addition, she sent several31
letters to the U.P. authorities
explaining her position.
It is not tenable for private respondent to argue that she
was entitled to have an audience before the Board of
Regents. Due process in an administrative context does not
require trialtype
32
proceedings similar to those in the courts
of justice. It is noteworthy that the U.P. Rules do not
require the attendance of persons whose cases are33
included
as items on the agenda of the Board of Regents.
Nor indeed was private respondent entitled to be
furnished a copy of the report of the Zafaralla committee as
part of her right to due 34
process. In Ateneo de Manila
University v. Capulong, we held:

Respondent students may not use the argument that since they
were not accorded the opportunity to see and examine the written
statements which became the basis of petitioners February 14,
1991 order, they were denied procedural due process. Granting
that they were denied such opportunity, the same may not be said
to detract from the observance of due process, for disciplinary

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to

cross examination. An administrative proceeding conducted to
investigate students participation in a hazing activity need not be
clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding . . .

In this case, in granting the writ of mandamus, the Court

of Appeals held:

__________________

30Id., pp. 5058.

31Id., pp. 5965; 7980.
32 National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, 283 SCRA 275 (1997).
33 University of the Philippines v. LigotTelan, 227 SCRA 342 (1993).
34 222 SCRA 644 (1993).

423

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 423

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

First. Petitioner graduated from the U.P. with a doctorate degree

in Anthropology. After graduation, the contact between U.P. and
petitioner ceased. Petitioner is no longer within the ambit of the
disciplinary powers of the U.P. As a graduate, she is entitled to
the right and enjoyment of the degree she has earned. To recall
the degree, after conferment, is not only arbitrary, unreasonable,
and an act of abuse, but a flagrant violation of petitioners right of
enjoyment to intellectual property.
Second. Respondents aver that petitioners graduation was a
mistake.
Unfortunately this mistake was arrived at after almost a
year after graduation. Considering that the members of the thesis
panel, the College Faculty Assembly, and the U.P. Council are all
men and women of the highest intellectual acumen and integrity,
as respondents themselves aver, suspicion is aroused that the
alleged mistake might not be the cause of withdrawal but some
other hidden agenda which respondents do not wish to reveal.
At any rate, We cannot countenance the plight the petitioner
finds herself enmeshed in as a consequence of the acts complained
of. Justice and equity demand that this be rectified by restoring
the degree conferred to her after her compliance with the
academic and other related requirements.

Art. XIV, 5 (2) of the Constitution provides that

[a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of
higher learning.
35
This is nothing new. 36The 1935
Constitution and the 1973 Constitution likewise
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

provided for the academic freedom or, more precisely, for

the institutional autonomy of universities and institutions
of higher learning. As pointed out by this Court in Garcia v.
37
Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology,
it is a freedom granted to institutions of higher learning
which is thus given a wide sphere of authority certainly
extending to the choice of students. If such institution of
higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study
in it, it certainly can also determine on

___________________

35 Art. XIV, 5.
36 Art. XV, 8 (2).
37 68 SCRA 277 (1975).

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its

graduates.
Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or
distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has
the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it
has thus conferred. This freedom of a university does not
terminate upon the graduation of a student, as the Court
of Appeals held. For it is precisely the graduation of such
a student that is in question. It is noteworthy that the
investigation of private respondents case began before her
graduation. If she was able to join the graduation
ceremonies on April 24, 1993, it was because of too many
investigations conducted before the Board of Regents
finally decided she should not have been allowed to
graduate.
Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted to
institutions of higher learning, for the constitutional grant
of academic freedom, to quote again from Garcia v. Faculty
Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, is not to
be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging
fashion.
Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the
highest governing
38
body of the University of the
Philippines. It has the power to confer degrees
39
upon the
recommendation of the University Council. It follows that
if the conferment of a degree is founded on error or fraud,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

the Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the

observance of due process, to withdraw what it has granted
without violating a students rights. An institution of
higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers that an
academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully deserved.
Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a
universitys highest academic degree upon an individual
who has obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The
pursuit of academic excellence is the universitys concern.
It should be empowered, as an act of selfdefense, to take
measures to protect itself from serious threats to its
integrity.

__________________

38 Act No. 1870, 4.

39Id., 9.

425

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 425

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

While it is true that the students are entitled to the right to

pursue their education, the USC as an educational institution is
also entitled to pursue its academic freedom and in the process
has the concomitant right to see to it that this freedom is not
40
jeopardized.

In the case at bar, the Board of Regents determined, after

due investigation conducted by a committee composed of
faculty members from different U.P. units, that private
respondent committed no less than ninety (90) instances of
intellectual dishonesty in her dissertation. The Board of
Regents decision to withdraw private respondents
doctorate was based on documents on record 41
including her
admission that she committed the offense.
On the other hand, private respondent was afforded the
opportunity to be heard and explain her side but failed to
refute the charges of plagiarism against her. Her only
claim is that her responses to the charges against her were
not considered by the Board of Regents before it rendered
its decision. However, this claim was not proven.
Accordingly, we must presume regularity in the
performance
42
of official duties in the absence of proof to the
contrary.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

Very much the opposite of the position of the Court of

Appeals that, since private respondent was no longer a
student of the U.P., the latter was no longer within the
ambit of disciplinary powers of the U.P., is private
respondents contention that it is the Student Disciplinary
Tribunal which had jurisdiction over her case because the
charge is dishonesty. Private respondent invokes 5 of the
U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and
Discipline which provides:

Jurisdiction.All cases involving discipline of students under

these rules shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the student
disciplinary tribunal, except the following cases which shall fall
under the jurisdiction of the appropriate college or unit;

____________________

40 Licup v. University of San Carlos, 178 SCRA 637 (1989).

41 Records, p. 192.
42 RULES OF COURT, Rule 131, 3 (m).

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

(a) Violation of college or unit rules and regulations by

students of the college, or
(b) Misconduct committed by students of the college or unit
within its classrooms or premises or in the course of an
official activity;

Provided, that regional units of the University shall have original

jurisdiction over all cases involving students of such units.

Private respondent argues that under 25 (a) of the said

Rules and Regulations, dishonesty in relation to ones
studies (i.e., plagiarism) may be punished only with
suspension for at least one (1) year.
As the abovequoted provision of 5 of the Rules and
Regulations indicates, the jurisdiction of the student
disciplinary tribunal extends only to disciplinary actions.
In this case, U.P. does not seek to discipline private
respondent. Indeed, as the appellate court observed,
private respondent is no longer within the ambit of
disciplinary powers of the U.P. Private respondent cannot
even be punished since, as she claims, the penalty for acts

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

of dishonesty in administrative disciplinary proceedings is

suspension from the University for at least one year. What
U.P., through the Board of Regents, seeks to do is to protect
its academic integrity by withdrawing from private
respondent an academic degree she obtained through
fraud.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
hereby REVERSED and the petition for mandamus is
hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo (Chairman), Quisumbing and Buena, JJ.,

concur.

Challenged decision reversed; petition for mandamus

dismissed.

Notes.The individual faculty member has the freedom

to pursue his studies in his particular specialty and
thereafter to
427

VOL. 313, AUGUST 31, 1999 427

University of the Philippines Board of Regents vs. Court of
Appeals

make known or publish the result of his endeavors without

fear that retribution would be visited on him in the event
that this conclusions are found distasteful or objectionable
to the powers that be, whether in the political, economic, or
academic establishments. In contrast, the University has
the academic freedom to determine for itself on academic
grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall
be taught, and who may be admitted to study. (Reyes vs.
Court of Appeals, 194 SCRA 402 [1991])
Educational institutions are afforded ample discretion to
formulate reasonable rules and regulations in the
admission of students, including setting of academic
standards. (University of San Agustin, Inc. vs. Court of
Appeals, 230 SCRA 761 [1994])

o0o

428

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/25
4/5/2017 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 313

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015b3e5fde08549c7081003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/25