G.R. No. 69198.

April 17, 1985

VENECIO VILLAR, INOCENCIO F. RECITIS, NOVERTO BARRETO, RUFINO G. SALCON, JR.,
EDGARDO DE LEON, JR., REGLOBEN LAXAMANA, and ROMEO GUILATCO, JR., petitioners, vs.
TECHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF THE PHILIPPINES (TIP)

FACTS:


Petitioners Villar, Recitis, Barreto, Salcon, de Leon, Laxamana and Guilatco were all refused enrollment at
the Technological Institute of the Philippines (TIP) due to their exercise of their constitutional right to
freedom of assembly. As held in MALABANAN vs RAMENTO, petitioners cannot be barred from enrollment
for their exercise of their freedom of assembly. In opposition to the petition filed by petitioners,
respondent made reference to the academic records of petitioners, invoking the constitutional provision
on academic freedom enjoyed by institutions of higher learning .Petitioners Barreto, de Leon, Jr. and
Laxamana all obtained failing grades while petitioners Villar, Salcon, Guilatco and Recitis met the
requirements for retention in the said institute, entitling them to the writs of certiorari and prohibition
against TIP.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not petitioners can be barred from enrollment for their exercise of their freedom of
assembly.

2. Whether or not TIP is under no obligation to admit the students with failing grades under the
constitutional provision on academic freedom regarded to institution of higher learning.

HELD:

1. NO. Petitioners have a valid cause for complaint if the exercise of the constitutional rights to free
speech and peaceable assembly was visited by their expulsion from respondent College.

2. YES. The academic freedom enjoyed by "institutions of higher learning" includes the right to set
academic standards to determine under what circumstances failing grades suffice for the
expulsion of students. Once it has done so, however, that standard should be followed
meticulously. It cannot be utilized to discriminate against those students who exercise their
constitutional rights to peaceable assembly and free speech. If it does so, then there is a
legitimate grievance by the students thus prejudiced, their right to the equal protection clause
being disregarded. To that extent therefore, there is justification for excluding three of the
aforementioned petitioners because of their marked academic deficiency.