This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2010-04-13 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide and adopt its aims and objectives, and to determine how these objections can best be attained, free from outside coercion or interference, save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. The essential freedoms subsumed in the term "academic freedom" encompass the freedom of the school or college to determine for itself: (1) who may teach; (2) who may be taught; (3) how lessons shall be taught; and (4) who may be admitted to study.[31] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| While we do not entirely blame the CA for being too cautious in not granting any injunctive relief without first considering the counter-arguments of the opposing parties, it would have been more prudent for it to have, at the very least, on account of the extreme urgency of the matter and the seriousness of the issues raised in the certiorari petition, issued a TRO while it awaits the respective comments of the respondents and while it judiciously contemplates on whether or not to issue a writ of preliminary injunction.[24] Verily, the basic purpose of the restraining order is to preserve the status quo until the hearing of the application for preliminary injunction.[25] It is a preservative remedy for the protection of substantive rights and interests.[26] | |||||
|
2008-05-22 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Certainly, academic institutions and personnel are granted wide latitude of action under the principle of academic freedom. Academic freedom encompasses the freedom to determine who may teach, who may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.[42] Following that doctrine, this Court has recognized that institutions of higher learning has the freedom to decide for itself the best methods to achieve their aims and objectives, free from outside coercion, except when the welfare of the general public so requires.[43] They have the independence to determine who to accept to study in their school and they cannot be compelled by mandamus to enroll a student.[44] | |||||
|
2007-12-19 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| Section 5(2), Article XIV of the Constitution guaranties all institutions of higher learning academic freedom. This institutional academic freedom includes the right of the school or college to decide for itself, its aims and objectives, and how best to attain them free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public interest calls for some restraint.[74] According to present jurisprudence, academic freedom encompasses the independence of an academic institution to determine for itself (1) who may teach, (2) what may be taught, (3) how it shall teach, and (4) who may be admitted to study.[75] | |||||
|
2006-08-07 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Neither is the petition for prohibition before the trial court violative of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Said doctrine precludes a court from arrogating unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence.[38] An exception to this rule is when the issue raised is a purely legal question, well within the competence and the jurisdiction of the court and not the administrative agency.[39] In the instant case, the legal question of whether a memorandum of the ARMM Governor, ordering the reinstatement of an employee declared AWOL and dropped from the rolls, was issued in excess of jurisdiction is a legal question which should be resolved by the courts. For the same reason that the issues to be resolved in this case are purely legal in nature, respondent need not abide by the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.[40] Besides, to allow the matter to remain with the Office of the ARMM Governor for resolution would be self-defeating and useless and cause unnecessary delay since it was the same office which gave the conflicting issuances on petitioner's reinstatement. | |||||
|
2004-12-10 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The main action for injunction is distinct from the provisional or ancillary remedy of preliminary injunction which cannot exist except only as part or an incident of an independent action or proceeding. As a matter of course, in an action for injunction, the auxiliary remedy of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, may issue. Under the law, the main action for injunction seeks a judgment embodying a final injunction which is distinct from, and should not be confused with, the provisional remedy of preliminary injunction, the sole object of which is to preserve the status quo until the merits can be heard.[44] A preliminary injunction is granted at any stage of an action or proceeding prior to the judgment or final order. It persists until it is dissolved or until the termination of the action without the court issuing a final injunction.[45] | |||||
|
2003-08-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Preliminary injunction is an order granted at any stage of an action, prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party, court, agency or person to perform or to refrain from performing a particular act or acts.[16] A preliminary injunction, as the term itself suggests, is merely temporary, subject to the final disposition of the principal action. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo of the matter subject of the action to protect the rights of the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. Otherwise, if no preliminary injunction is issued, the defendant may, before final judgment, do the act which the plaintiff is seeking the court to restrain. This will make ineffectual the final judgment that the court may afterwards render in granting relief to the plaintiff.[17] | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| restraint.[22] It encompasses the freedom to determine for itself on academic grounds: who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study."[23] The right of the school to confirm and validate the teaching method of Dr. Daleon is at once apparent in the third freedom, i.e., "how it shall be taught." Academic freedom also accords a faculty member the right to pursue his studies in his particular specialty.[24] It is defined as a right claimed by the accredited educator, as teacher and as investigator, to interpret his findings and to communicate his | |||||