Title:

GARCIA vs. THE FACULTY ADMISSION COMMITTEE, LOYOLA SCHOOL

OF THEOLOGY [G.R. No. L-40779]
Date:

Nov. 28, 1975
Petitioner:
Epicharis T. Garcia
Respondent/s:
The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of
Theology (Fr. Antonio B. Lambino)
FACTS:
1. Petitioner has been barred from being allowed re-admission into the
respondent school, which is a seminary for the priesthood in
collaboration with the Ateneo de Manila University. Petitioner was
taking her studies leading to an M.A. in Theology at the time, but was
no longer allowed to enroll in the Academic Year of 1975-1976.
2. Petitioner contends that the reason behind the respondents refusal to
re-admit her (as stated in a letter from the respondent), which is due
to the fact that her frequent questions and difficulties that were
slowing down the progress of the class, does not constitute valid legal
ground for expulsion for they neither present any violation of any of
the schools regulation, nor are they indicative of gross misconduct.
She was advised to enroll in the University of Santo Tomas Graduate
School (Ecclesiastical Faculty), where she will have to take up
Philosophy (4-5 years, compared to 2 years in Ateneo) before she will
be allowed to take Theology. She was, however, allowed to take some
courses for credit, free of charge, during the summer sessions of the
respondent school in 1975, but was not acknowledged to be enrolled
in any degree program.
3. Petitioner then filed for a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent
to allow her admission.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether the petitioner is deemed to possess a right to be respected by
the respondent in terms being denied re-admission?
2. Whether the Faculty Admission Committee had to authority to bar the
petitioner from continuing her studies in their institution?
RULE/S:
ARTICLE XIV

SEC. 1 The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to
quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such
education accessible to all.

SEC. 5 (2) Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher
learning.
ANALYSIS:
1. Due to the fact that the respondent school the petitioner was enrolling
to was a seminary for priesthood and for men, the most she could
claim for is a privilege, and not a right. Furthermore, she was
admittedly enrolling into a course that was not for the priesthood.
Besides, even if, for the sake of argument, she was qualified to study
for the priesthood, there is still no duty on the part of the respondent
to admit her for the discretion to accept or reject qualified applicants
still lies on the respondent school.

2. Also, taking into consideration Sec. 5 of Art. XIV, the aforementioned

discretion is backed by the Constitution.
CONCLUSION:

Petition is dismissed for lack of merit.