UP Board of Regents vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R No. 134625 (May 31, 1999)
Arokiaswamy William was enrolled in a Doctoral Program in Anthropology of the UP
Diliman College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP). She had an oral defense but
after going over the dissertations, the panel pointed out that after it has been looked into,
some portion of it was lifted from other sources without proper acknowledgement, hence
requesting her to revise the dissertation which she failed to do and resulted to disapproval
from two of the panels of her Oral Defense. Dean Paz through a letter, asked for
Williams explanation why the signature of Dr. Medina, who was one of the panels, was
not affixed but William clarified that she relied on Dean Pazs remark when the she stated
that a majority vote of the panel members was sufficient for a student to pass. William
expressed her disappointment over the CSSP administration for maliciously working for
the disapproval of her dissertation, but Dean Paz sent a letter to the Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs requesting the name of William to be excluded in the list of candidates
for graduation which failed to reach the recipient on time, hence, William was able to
graduate. In a letter addressed to Dean Paz, Dr. Medina formally charged William with
plagiarism and recommended that the doctorate granted to her be withdrawn. An ad hoc
committee was formed and after thorough investigation, it was reported that they found at
least ninety instances or portions in the thesis which were lifted from sources without due
acknowledgement. Further investigations and interviews with William were held to
reinvestigate her case which involved the Board of Regents until it has been established
that William is guilty of the allegation of plagiarism which she admitted herself to the
special committee. A letter from the Board of Regents addressed to William was sent
informing her 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be withdrawn.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, William filed a petition for mandamus to
restore her degree. William appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower
courts decision and ordered petitioner to restore Williams degree.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in restoring Williams degree?
Yes, the Court of Appeals decision 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,
William was heard on her defense, informed in writing about the charges and provided
with a copy from the investigating committee. William was also given the chance to
discuss her case with the UP Chancellor and Zafaralla Committee but still 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 investigation
began before the board has decided that she was not supposed to graduate.