On June 23, 2005, the University of San Agustin received the Decision dated June 16, 2005 of the Honorable Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 78894 entitled “Rev. Fr. Jose Rene C. Delariarte, OSA, et al. v. Honorable Rene B. Honrado, et al.”  The Decision found merit and granted the Petition for Certiorari filed by the University of San Agustin against the various orders and writs issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Iloilo City in Civil Cases Nos. 03-27460 and 03-27646. The main premise of the Petition for Certiorari was that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter or dispute involving members of the educational community and accordingly, all of its orders and writs are null and void.  

        The dispositive portion of the appellate court’s ruling reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED.  Accordingly, the assailed orders are VACATED and SET ASIDE. 

Hence, the court a quo is ORDERED to DISMISS Civil Case No. 03-27460 and Civil Case No. 03-27646 for lack of jurisdiction.”

        Civil Case Nos. 03-27460 and 03-27646 were instituted by five parents to force and coerce the  University of San Agustin to re-admit their children and thereafter, to consider them as graduates of High School Class 2003.  These parents filed these cases even if their children were caught and blottered as having participated as masters in hazing or initiation rites of the Sandigan Fraternity in November 2002 -- a fact that the parents and children admitted and even sought forgiveness from parents whose children were hazed. These parents filed these cases even if they had voluntarily agreed in writing to transfer their children to another school in order for the latter to avoid the trauma and stigma of disciplinary proceedings -- which transfer was endorsed by the Regional Director for Regional VI of the Department of Education or DepEd. These parents filed these cases in court notwithstanding that they knew these same issues were pending resolution before the DepEd.

        From these cases stemmed two contempt cases: the first, Civil Case No. 03-27719, against Rev. Fr. Jose Rene C. Delariarte, OSA and Rev. Fr. Manuel M. Vergara, OSA and the second, Civil Case No. 03-27839, against the Assistant Principal and teachers of the University of San Agustin High School. The trial court, in both cases, found the respondents guilty which triggered a media circus that included personal and gutter-language attacks on the person of the President of the University of San Agustin by print and radio personalities. Only recently, these cases were used to drum up hatred against University administrators and at the same time, sympathy for legally dismissed union officers headed by Theodore Neil Lasola who, together with some “farmers,” are conducting a “union strike.”

        The University of San Agustin is not surprised by the Decision.  The doctrine of primary jurisdiction and that the Education Act of 1982 vests in the Department of Education the primary authority to hear and resolve disputes by and among members of the educational community are settled concept and ruling respectively by no less than the Supreme Court.  The trial court however, for reasons known only to the judges who presided over these cases, simply refused to apply the doctrine and settled jurisprudence.

        The University of San Agustin however is heartened by the fact that the Court of Appeals “called a spade a spade” and did not mince words as to the true nature of Civil Case Nos. 03-27460 and 03-27646. At the same time, the appellate court’s ruling supported and strengthened the University’s effort and resolve to curb and get rid of hazing, a criminal offense,  in order to provide its students with a safe learning  environment and peace of mind to their parents.

“We rule that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter for failure of herein private respondents to exhaust administrative remedies or for being pre-mature.

Herein private respondents should have waited for the action of the President of the University of San Agustin or the DepEd before resorting to judicial action.

At the risk of being repetitious, this Court would like to emphasize the authority of educational institutions to maintain school discipline as provided in Section 74 of the Manual of regulations for Private Schools. It provides, to quote:

‘Section 74. Authority to Maintain School Discipline.  Every private school shall maintain good school discipline inside the school campus as well as outside the school premises x x x.’

Evidently, schools may compel students to keep to norms of conduct expected of members of the academic community, whether on or off campus.  Therefore, when students misbehave outside the campus and the misconduct complained of, which in this case is ‘hazing’, directly affects the offender’s status as a suitable member of that community, there is no reason why schools may not impose disciplinary sanctions on him.

On the other hand, private respondents cannot insist on their right to continue studying in a school because the said right is not absolute.  It is subject to the condition that the student must, at all times, pass the academic and disciplinary standards laid down by one’s school.

>From the foregoing, it is clear that the court a quo committed grave [abuse] of discretion amounting to LACK OF JURISDICTION in INTERFERING, pre-maturely, with the exclusive and inherent authority of educational institutions to discipline.

In directing herein petitioners to re-admit herein private respondents and eventually to release the report cards and other school credentials, prior to the action of the President of USA and of the recommendation of the COSD, the court a quo is guilty to improper judicial intrusion by encroaching into the exclusive prerogative of educational institutions.

In reality, private respondents’ purpose in filing civil cases with the regional trial court is to preempt herein petitioners from expelling their children from the school.” (Decision, pp. 9-10, emphasis supplied.)

        To the above discourse, the University of San Agustin adds that decisions of the DepEd Regional Director are appealable to the Secretary of Education whose decisions, in turn, may be appealed to the Office of the President or the Court of Appeals.  In other words, in the scheme of things, regional trial courts have no jurisdiction, original or appellate, in the resolution of disputes by and among members of the education community – even if damages are involved.  Again this is settled jurisprudence.

        In clinging and asserting it has jurisdiction over a dispute by and among members of the educational community, the records will bear that the trial court, apart from ignoring settled doctrine and jurisprudence, went to the extent of (a) stating facts that are not supported by the records; (b) ruling that the Writ and Order of June 17 and 18, 2003 respectively in Civil Case No. 03-27646 – which the Court of Appeals precisely vacated and set aside in its present Decision – was not appealed and had become final and executory even if the bulky Petition for Certiorari assailing these processes was attached to the record and readily visible; (c) accommodating a surreptitiously filed Motion  praying that the trial court “make a declaration that the release of the cards and other school credentials of [name of students] from the University of San Agustin is one of the issues pending before this Honorable Court and that the Court will appreciate their admission for temporary enrollment by the Central Philippine University this second semester and the succeeding school years thereafter and that copy of such order be furnished the Central Philippine University” even if Central Philippine University is not a party to the case.

        The records will further bear that Civil Case No. 03-27839 was consolidated with Civil Case Nos. 03-27460, 03-27646 and 03-27719 in an Order dated September 12, 2003 notwithstanding that the case was filed by their counsel, Atty. Eduardo N. Reyes, Jr.,  on September 10, 2003 and raffled only on September 15, 2003.  Finally, the University of San Agustin to date is still awaiting the trial court’s action of the Notice of Appeal and Record on Appeal Ad Cautelam it had seasonably filed way back in November and December 2004 respectively in Civil Case Nos. 03-27719 and 03-27839 appealing the Orders finding the teachers, principals and President of the University of San Agustin guilty of indirect contempt and imposing a bond totaling 700,000.00 Pesos.  These circumstances are probably the reasons behind the following remark of the Honorable Justices of the Court of Appeals, viz:

“Various motions were filed by the private respondents with the court a quo in their desperate bid to frustrate or thwart the impending unfavorable recommendation of the COSD.

Unsurprisingly, the court a quo consistently granted all the reliefs prayed for by the private respondents.” (Decision, p. 8, emphasis by the Court of Appeals itself.)

Having gone (and still going) through this calvary, the defendants and/or respondents in the four consolidated cases cannot be blamed if their faith in the judicial system has diminished. 

        The Court of Appeals’ decision has now put things in their proper perspective. We trust that the contempt cases will soon be dismissed as these stem from orders of a trial court that, as ruled by the appellate court, did not have jurisdiction to issue the same in the first place.  On the other hand, the five parents who did not have the decency to abide by and reneged on their agreement to transfer their children and then forced the University of San Agustin to re-admit the same have only themselves to blame. We can only surmise and lament at the lessons and values imparted to the five children by their parents from this sorry episode.  In any case, their children, as far as the University of San Agustin is concerned, are not graduates of its High School Department. They were dropped from the rolls for being “undesirable.”  The decision to drop has long become final as it was never appealed.  Any educational institution that accepts or has accepted these children does and did so at its own risk.

                UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN

                   Iloilo City

                   June 24, 2005