Up Board Of Regents Vs. Ligot-teylan.docx

UP Board of Regents vs. Ligot-Teylan G.R. No. 110280 October 12, 1993 Romero, J.

FACTS: Ramon P. Nadal, a student enrolled in the UP College of Law, applied for Socialized Tuition Fee and Assistance Program (STFAP). U.P. charged Nadal before the Student Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT). SDT rendered a decision finding him guilty of "wilfully and deliberately withholding information in his STFAP application about the income of his mother, who is living abroad, in support of the studies of his brothers Antonio and Federico, which is tantamount to acts of dishonesty in relation to his studies. As such, the SDT imposed upon Nadal the penalty of expulsion from the University and required him to reimburse all STFAP benefits he had received but if he does not voluntarily make reimbursement. The Executive Committee affirmed the decision of the SDT. Nadal appealed to the Board of Regents (BOR). BOR affirmed the decision of the SDT. Nadal forthwith filed a motion for reconsideration of the BOR decision. In the morning of March 29, 1993, the BOR found Nadal guilty and imposed upon him the penalties of suspension for one (1) year effective March 29, 1993, non-issuance of any certificate of good moral character during the suspension and/or as long as Nadal has not reimbursed the STFAP benefits he had received with 12% interest per annum from march 30, 1993 and nonissuance of his transcript of records until he has settled his financial obligations with the university. Nadal filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction and prayer for a temporary restraining order against President Abueva, the BOR, Oscar M. Alfonso, Cesar A. Buenaventura, Armand V. Fabella and Olivia C. Caoili. Petitioners filed the instant petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of an injunction and alleged that RTC judge gravely abused her discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction thereby preventing the BOR from implementing the suspension penalty it had imposed on Nadal. Private respondent opposed the petition and argued that Dr. Caoili, not having been authorized by the Board of Regents as a collegial body to file the instant petition, and Dr. Abueva, who verified the petition, not being the "Board of Regents" nor "the University of the Philippines," they are not real parties in interest who should file the same. ISSUE: I. Whether or not a respondent to a petition for certiorari may assail the legal standing of the petitioner when the former had specifically named the latter in a petition for mandamus for which the injunction was issued and is assailed in the certiorari petition. II. Whether or not mandamus shall be applicable in this case.

HELD: I. The answer is in the negative. A real party in interest is one "who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. 'Interest' within the meaning of the rule means material interest, an interest in issue and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in the question involved, or a mere incidental interest." Undoubtedly, the U.P. Board of Regents has an interest to protect inasmuch as what is in issue here is its power to impose disciplinary action against a student who violated the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline by withholding information in connection with his application for STFAP benefits, which information, if disclosed, would have sufficed to disqualify him from receiving the financial assistance he sought. Such dishonesty, if left unpunished, would have the effect of subverting a commendable program into which the University officials had devoted much time and expended precious resources, from the conceptualization to the implementation stage, to rationalize the socialized scheme of tuition fee payments in order that more students may benefit from the public funds allocated to the State University. Having specifically named Drs. Abueva and Caoili as respondents in the petition for mandamus that he filed below, Nadal is now estopped from questioning their personality to file the instant petition. Moreover, under Sec. 7 of the U.P. Charter (Act 1870) and Sec. 11 of the University Code "all process" against the BOR shall be served on "the president or secretary thereof'." It is in accordance with these legal provisions that Dr. Caoili is named as a petitioner. Necessarily, Dr. Abueva, the University President and member of the BOR, has to verify the petition. It is not mandatory, however, that each and every member of the BOR be named petitioners. As the Court has time and again held, an action may be entertained, notwithstanding the failure to include an indispensable party where it appears that the naming of the party would be but a formality. Mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases, a showing of a clear and certain right on the part of the petitioner being required. It is of no avail against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment. II.

Mandamus is not applicable since UP exercise a valid academic freedom. SC reiterated the doctrine in Arellano vs Cui that school has an academic freedom to whom they will accept in their institution. UP has therefore the discretion in this case that the court should respect therefore Mandamus shall not prosper.