Cudia v.

Superintendent of the PMA

February 24, 2015
G.R. No. 211362

Facts:
Cadel 1CL Cudia was a member of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the PMA. He was
supposed to be the salutatorian of his batch. Professor Juanita Berong (Prof. Berong) of the 5th
period class issued a Delinquency Report (DR) against Cadet 1CL Cudia because he was “late for
two (2) minutes in his Eng 412 class x x x.” In his Explanation of Report dated December 8, 2013,
Cadet 1CL Cudia reasoned out that: “I came directly from OR432 Class. We were dismissed a bit
late by our instructor Sir.” He was punished because of the result of his conversation with Dr.
Costales, who said that she never dismissed her class late.

Cudia wrote an appeal to seek reconsideration of the punishment. Honor Committee

constituted a team to conduct a preliminary investigation and submitted its Preliminary
Investigation Report recommending that the case be formalized. The first formal hearing started
late evening of January 20, 2014 and lasted until early morning the next day. Cadet 1CL Cudia
was informed of the charge against him, as to which he pleaded “Not Guilty.” Cadet 1CL Cudia,
was then informed of the unanimous votes finding him guilty of violating the Honor Code. He was
immediately placed in the PMA Holding Center until the resolution of his appeal. Cudia filed an
appeal and it was denied as it found no reason to conduct a re-trial based on the arguments and
evidence presented. Colonel Rozzano D. Briguez (Col. Briguez), the Commandant of Cadets,
affirmed the HC findings and recommended to Vice Admiral Edgar Abogado, then PMA
Superintendent, the separation from the PMA of Cadet 1CL Cudia for violation of the First Tenet
of the Honor Code. Cudia filed an appeal. But the Headquarters resolved to deny Cudia’s appeal
for lack of merit.

Issue:
WON Cudia was denied of due process of law?

Held:
NO. He was not denied due process since he was heard by the Honor Committee.

In administrative cases, such as investigations of students found violating school discipline,

there are minimum standards which must be met before to satisfy the demands of procedural due
process which were mentioned in DLSU v. CA:
 1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them;
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them and with the
assistance if counsel, if desired;
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.

Cudia argued that he was not accorded a counsel, that it was not a judicial type of
proceeding. However, there was no violation of the due process based on those arguments. This
argument was already in Guzman v. National University where this court held that “disciplinary
sanctions requires observance of the procedural due process. And it bears stressing that due process
in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those
prescribed for actions and proceedings in court of justice. The proceedings in student discipline
cases may be summary; and cross examination is not, x x an essential part thereof.” It only requires
substantive evidence.

Hence, Cudia was wrong that it should have been judicial in character like cross examine
represented by a counsel was a pre-investigation conducted here prior to the filing of the charges
against him before the CRAB. (Cadet Review and Appeals Board). He was notified of the Honor
Code Report that he did something wrong. He was given opportunity to be heard to explain the
report against him; there were proceedings to evaluate the report and his explanation. The Supreme
Court upheld the decision of the Honor Committee and the Cadets Review and Appeals Board.
Cudia was forfeited of his privileged to graduate from the Philippine Military Academy.