Case Digest - Go vs. Colegio de San Juan de Letran

GO, and Minor EMERSON CHESTER KIM B.
GO, Petitioners, vs. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE

LETRAN, REV. FR. EDWIN LAO, REV. FR. JOSE RHOMMEL HERNANDEZ, ALBERT ROSARDA
and MA. TERESA SURATOS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 169391, October 10, 2012
BRION, J.:
FACTS:
1. In October 2001, The Head of Letran’s Auxiliary Services Department, received
information that certain fraternities were recruiting new members among Letran’s
high school students. They also received a list of the students allegedly involved.
School authorities started an investigation, including the conduct of medical
examinations on the students whose names were on the list.
2. On November 20, 2002, the school physician, reported that six (6) students bore
injuries, probable signs of blunt trauma of more than two weeks, on the posterior
portions of their thighs.
3. The Assistant Prefect for Discipline, conferred with the students and asked for their
explanations in writing. They also identified the senior members of the fraternity
present at their hazing. These included Kim, then a fourth year high school student.
4. The respondents found substantial basis in the neophytes’ statements that Kim
was a senior fraternity member. Based on their disciplinary rules, the Father Prefect
for Discipline (respondent Rev. Fr. Jose Rhommel Hernandez) recommended the
fraternity members’ dismissal from the high school department rolls and
rejected the recommendation to allow the fourth year students to graduate from
Letran.
5. The petitioners claim that respondents Colegio de San Juan de Letran (Letran), with
its officials, should be held liable for moral, exemplary, and actual damages for
unlawfully dismissing petitioner Emerson Chester Kim B. Go (Kim) from the rolls of
the high school department of Letran.
6. The respondents claim that they lawfully suspended Kim for violating the school’s
rule against fraternity membership. The RTC held that the respondents had failed
to observe “the basic requirement of due process” and that their evidence was
“utterly insufficient” to prove that Kim was a fraternity member, but was reversed by
CA the petitioners were not denied due process as the petitioners had been given
ample opportunity to be heard in Kim’s disciplinary case.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner were not denied due process.
RULING:
Yes. The court did not agree that a private school, possesses no authority to impose a
dismissal, or any disciplinary action for that matter, on students who violate its policy
against fraternity membership must be corrected.
The Court has always recognized the right of schools to impose disciplinary sanctions on
students who violate disciplinary rules.
In this case, the petitioners were notified of both rule and penalty through Kim’s enrollment
contract for school year 2001 to 2002. Notably, the penalty provided for fraternity
membership is “summary dismissal.” We also note that Mrs. Go signified her conformé
to these terms with her signature in the contract. No reason, therefore, exist to justify the
trial court’s position that respondent Letran cannot lawfully dismiss violating students, such
as Kim.
The court see no merit in the argument as the petitioners apparently hew to an erroneous
view of administrative due process. Jurisprudence has clarified that administrative due
process cannot be fully equated with due process in the strict judicial sense. What matters
for due process purpose is notice of what is to be explained, not the form in which the notice
is given.
Other points: ESCRA
Jurisprudence has clarified that administrative due process cannot be fully equated
with due process in the strict judicial sense.
The Supreme Court held that when a student commits a serious breach of discipline
or fails to maintain the required academic standard, he forfeits his contractual right, and
the court should not review the discretion of university authorities.
In Licup v. San Carlos University, 178 SCRA 637 (1989), the Court held that when a student
commits a serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standard,
he forfeits his contractual right, and the court should not review the discretion of university
authorities. In San Sebastian College v. Court of Appeals, et al., 197 SCRA 138 (1991), we
held that only when there is marked arbitrariness should the court interfere with the
academic judgment of the school faculty and the proper authorities.
In this case, we find that the respondents observed due process in Kim’s disciplinary case,
consistent with our pronouncements in Guzman. No reason exists why the above principles
in these cited cases cannot apply to this case. The respondents’ decision that Kim had
violated a disciplinary rule and should be sanctioned must be respected.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
RULING:
Other points: ESCRA

Case Digest - Go vs. Colegio de San Juan de Letran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Go vs. Colegio de San Juan de Letran

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest - Go vs. Colegio de San Juan de Letran

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GO, and Minor EMERSON CHESTER KIM B.

GO, Petitioners, vs. COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE

Other points: ESCRA

Other points: ESCRA

You might also like