UP VS.

CA

This is a petition to review Court of Appeals decision of issuing Writ of Mandamus to the petitioner to
restore PRs (Private Respondent) college degree.

FACTS:
Private respondent Arokiaswamy William was enrolled in a Doctoral Program in Anthropology of the UP
Diliman College of Social Sciences and Philosophy.
An oral defense by the PR was held on February 5, 1993. After going over the dissertations, the panel
pointed out after it has been looked into that some portion of it were lifted from other sources without
proper acknowledgement, hence requesting her to revise the dissertation which PR failed to do so
resulting to her not obtaining approval from 2 of the panels of the Oral Defense.
When questioned by Dean Paz, PR sent a letter on April 17, 1993 explaining the reasons why the
signature of Dr. Medina (one of the panels) wasnt affixed and advised that she relied on Dean Pazs
remark dated March 5, 1993 when the former stated 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. She also expressed her disappointment over the CSSP administration for maliciously
working or the disapproval of her dissertation, and further warned Dean Paz against encouraging
perfidious acts against her.
On April 21, 1992, Dean Paz sent a letter to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs requesting the name
of the PR to be excluded in the list of candidates for graduation which failed to reach the recipient on time,
hence, the PR was able to graduate on April 24, 1993.
In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, Dr. Medina formally charged private respondent with plagiarism and
recommended that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn which the PR was informed of dated June
7, 1993.
An ad hoc committee was formed and after thorough investigation, it was reported that they found at least
90 instances or portions in the thesis which were lifted from sources without due acknowledgement.
Further investigations and interviews with the PR were held to reinvestigate her case which involved the
Board of Regents until it has been established that PR is guilty of the allegation of Plagiarism which was
actually admitted by the PR herself to the special committee.
A letter from the Board of Regents addressed to the PR was sent informing the latter that it has been
concluded by the committee that her doctorate degree will be withdrawn.
A petition has been filed to the Chairman of the board of regents for reinvestigation which was hereby
denied, hence, PR filed a petition for mandamus to restore her degree which includes payment for moral
and exemplary damages which was also denied by branch 227 trial court.
On August 6, 1996, PR appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on December 16, 1997 reversed the
lower courts decision and ordered petitioner to restore PRs degree.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
1. WON the Court of appeals erred in granting the writ of mandamus and ordering the
petitioners to restore PR's doctoral degree.
2. WON the CA erred in holding that the doctoral degree given by UP cannot be recalled
without violating her right to enjoyment of intellectual property to justice and equity.
3. WON the PR was deprived of her right to substantive due process.
HELD:

1. Yes. The court of appeals decisions was based on grounds that the private respondent was denied of
due
process and that she graduated and no longer in the ambit of disciplinary powers of UP.
In all investigations held by the different committee assigned to investigate the charges, the private
respondent was heard on her defense. In fact she was informed in writing about the charges and was
provided
with a copy from the investigating committee. She was asked to submit her explanation which she
forwarded.
Private respondent also discussed her case with the UP Chancellor and Zafaralla Committee during their
meetings. She was given the opportunity to be heard and explain her side but failed to refute the charges
of
plagiarism against her.
The freedom of a university does not terminate upon the "graduation" of a student, as the Court of
Appeals held because the "graduation" of such a student that is in question. The investigation began
before
graduation. She was able to graduate because there were many investigations conducted before the
Board
finally decided that she should not have been allowed to graduate.
2. Yes. The court held that academic freedom is guaranteed to institutions of higher learning by Art XIV of
the 1987 Constitution. This freedom includes deciding whom a university will confer degrees on. If the
degree isprocured by error or fraud then the Board of Regents, subject to due process being followed,
may cancel that degree.
Art. XIV, Section 5 par. 2 of the Constitution provides that "academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all
institutions of higher learning."
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 whom it can confer the honor and distinction
of being its graduates.

3. NO. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain
one's side of a controversy or a chance 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. In the case at bar, the PR was informed in writing of the charges against her and afforded
opportunities to refute them. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type
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.