This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Constitutions of 1935, 1973, and 1987.[116] In Garcia, this Court espoused the concurring opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter in Sweezy v. New Hampshire,[117] which enumerated "the four essential freedoms" of a university: To determine for itself on academic grounds (1) who may teach, (2) what may be taught, (3) how it shall be taught, and (4) who may be admitted to study.[118] An educational institution has the power to adopt and enforce such rules as may be deemed expedient for its government, this being incident to the very object of incorporation, and indispensable to the successful management of the college.[119] It can decide for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them, free from outside coercion or interference except when there is an overriding public welfare which would call for some restraint.[120] Indeed, "academic freedom has never been meant to be an unabridged license. It is a privilege that assumes a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly. An equally telling precept is a long recognized mandate, so well expressed in Article 19 of the Civil Code, that every 'person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.'"[121] | |||||
|
2012-10-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In De La Salle University, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,[51] where we affirmed the petitioning university's right to exclude students from the rolls of their respective schools[52] for their involvement in a fraternity mauling incident, we rejected the argument that there is a denial of due process when students are not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against them in school disciplinary proceedings. We reject the same argument in this case. | |||||
|
2010-12-08 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| However, we cannot give credence to said affidavits. In respondent's August 13, 2001 Reply filed with the Labor Arbiter, respondent indicated that he reported for work at 6:00 p.m. Thus, we agree with the factual finding of the Labor Arbiter in his October 19, 2001 Decision that "[I]f complainant reported for work at 6:00 p.m. of November 26, 1999, he definitely was not in PLDT Village, Biñan, Laguna shortly after 6:00 p.m. or at around 6:30 p.m. of November 26, 1999,"[36] as the separate affidavits of Rodolfo S. Untalan and Valente Jose declared.[37] Time and again, this Court has held that "[p]ositive identification of the [respondent] where categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness x x x, should prevail over the alibi and denial of [the respondent and his witnesses] whose testimonies are [conflicting] and not substantiated."[38] | |||||