This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2011-08-17 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Certiorari being an extraordinary remedy, the party who seeks to avail of the same must strictly observe the rules laid down by law.[28] The extraordinary writ of certiorari may be availed of only upon a showing, in the minimum, that the respondent tribunal or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion.[29] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On June 3, 1997, Graft Investigator Atty. Jovito Coresis, Jr., issued a resolution dismissing OMB-ADM-3-96-0132, which was approved by Ombudsman Aniano Desierto. On August 22, 2002, this Court rendered a decision[4] affirming said resolution of the Ombudsman. | |||||