Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES BOARD OF REGENTS v. ELSIE LIGOT-TELAN IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 87

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 211362 2015-02-24	CUDIA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PMA PERALTA, J.
With respect to the prayer directing the PMA to restore Cadet 1CL Cudia's rights and entitlements as a full-fledged graduating cadet, including his diploma, awards, and commission as a new Philippine Navy ensign, the same cannot be granted in a petition for mandamus on the basis of academic freedom, which We shall discuss in more detail below. Suffice it to say at this point that these matters are within the ambit of or encompassed by the right of academic freedom; therefore, beyond the province of the Court to decide.[64] The powers to confer degrees at the PMA, grant awards, and commission officers in the military service are discretionary acts on the part of the President as the AFP Commander-in-Chief. Borrowing the words of Garcia:There are standards that must be met. There are policies to be pursued. Discretion appears to be of the essence. In terms of Hohfeld's terminology, what a student in the position of petitioner possesses is a privilege rather than a right. She [in this case, Cadet 1CL Cudia] cannot therefore satisfy the prime and indispensable requisite of a mandamus proceeding.[65]
	GR No. 211362 2015-02-24	CUDIA v. SUPERINTENDENT OF PMA PERALTA, J.
The schools' power to instill discipline in their students is subsumed in their academic freedom and that "the establishment of rules governing university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival."[122] As a Bohemian proverb puts it: "A school without discipline is like a mill without water." Insofar as the water turns the mill, so does the school's disciplinary power assure its right to survive and continue operating.[123] In this regard, the Court has always recognized the right of schools to impose disciplinary sanctions, which includes the power to dismiss or expel, on students who violate disciplinary rules.[124] In Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[125] this Court elucidated:The right of the school to discipline its students is at once apparent in the third freedom, i.e., "how it shall be taught." A school certainly cannot function in an atmosphere of anarchy.
	GR No. 171182 2012-08-23	UNIVERSITY OF PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN S. DIZON BERSAMIN, J.
Thereupon, on January 10, 2005, the UP brought a petition for certiorari in the CA to challenge the jurisdiction of the RTC in issuing the order of December 21, 2004 (CA-G.R. CV No. 88125).[35] Aside from raising the denial of due process, the UP averred that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in ruling that there was no longer any legal impediment to the release of the garnished funds. The UP argued that government funds and properties could not be seized by virtue of writs of execution or garnishment, as held in Department of Agriculture v. National Labor Relations Commission,[36] and citing Section 84 of Presidential Decree No. 1445 to the effect that "[r]evenue funds shall not be paid out of any public treasury or depository except in pursuance of an appropriation law or other specific statutory authority;" and that the order of garnishment clashed with the ruling in University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan[37] to the effect that the funds belonging to the UP were public funds.