17.96 Tan v.

CA – 199 SCRA 212

Facts: Petitioner Julia Tan is the principal of Grace Christian High School offering both
elementary and secondary courses while petitioner James Tan is the administrative
consultant of the school. This case arose from the refusal of the petitioners to admit and
enroll certain students because of heated controversies, acts of misbehavior, and a refusal
to dialogue with the school administration leading the school authorities to believe that it
would be best for all concerned if these children enrolled in other schools.

Issue: W/N the school authorities’ refusal to enroll these children in the said school was
acted in bad faith

Ruling: The Court ruled that private schools are subject to reasonable regulation and
supervision of the state, but they also have the right to establish reasonable rules and
regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students. This right to establish
and enforce reasonable rules and regulations extends as well to parents, and parent-
teacher associations, as parents are under a social and moral, if not legal obligation, to
assist and cooperate with the schools.

17.97 Camacho v. Coresis, GR 134372, Aug. 22, 2002

Facts: Petitioner is the Dean of the College of Education of University of Southeastern

Philippines in Davao City who has served the university as a faculty member and as an
administrator for almost 13 years. Administrative charges were filed against respondent
Dr. Daleon, which includes incompetence, favoritism and unjust discrimination because
accordingly, Dr. Daleon gave three students final passing grades without requiring them
to attend regular classes. Instead, Dr. Daleon gave them a special program of self-study
with reading materials, once a week tutorial meetings, quizzes, and term papers. The
Board of Regents held in favor of Dr. Daleon stating that “Every member of the faculty
shall enjoy academic freedom, which is the right of the professor to teach the subject of
his specialization according to his best lights… nor shall any restraint be placed upon him
in the choice of subjects for research and investigation.”

Issue: W/N the Board of Regents has the authority to decide the case regarding the
controversial teaching style of Dr. Daleon

Ruling: Court agrees with the respondent’s position on the primacy of academic freedom
in regard to higher institutions of learning. As applied to the case at
bar, academic freedom clothes Dr. Daleon with the widest latitude to innovate and
experiment on the method of teaching which is most fitting to his students (graduate
students at that), subject only to the rules and policies of the university. Considering that
the Board of Regents, whose task is to lay down school rules and policies of the
University of Southeastern Philippines, has validated his teaching style, the Court sees no
reason for petitioner to complain before them simply because he holds a contrary opinion
on the matter.
17.98 Civil Service Commission v. Sojor – 554 SCRA 160

Facts: Respondent was appointed by then Pres. Aquino as president of the Central
Visayas Polytechnic College in Dumaguete City. Three separate administrative cases
were filed against the respondent by the CPVC faculty members before the CSC
Regional Office, which included dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service. Respondent claimed that the CSC had no jurisdiction over
him as a presidential appointee.

Issue: Is the president of a state university outside the reach of the disciplinary
jurisdiction constitutionally granted to the CSC over all civil servants and official?

Ruling: The guaranteed academic freedom does not give an institution the unbridled
authority to perform acts without any statutory basis. The Court held that for this reason,
a school official who is a member of the civil service, may not be permitted to commit
violations of civil service rules under the justification that he was free to do so under the
principle of academic freedom.

17.99 Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of S&T, GR 156109, Nov 18, 2004

FACTS: Kristine Rhea Regino was a first year student of Pangasinan Colleges of
Science and Technology. She is from a poor family and she only gets support for her
education from her relatives.
The school held a fund raising campaign through a dance party, in which each students
were compelled to buy 2 tickets, and as a result, the students were given additional
points on their final exam and those who did not purchase tickets were not allowed to
take said final exams.
Prohibited by Regino’s religion from attending dance parties, she did not purchase the
tickets. So the teachers [Ms. Gamurot and Ms. Baladad] did not allow her to take the
exams, despite her pleas.

ISSUE: Whether the school can invoke academic freedom when its teachers did not
allow a student to take the final exam as a consequence of the student’s non-participation
in the school’s fund raising campaign because prohibited by her religion?

RULING: The SC did not heed the school’s and teachers’ contention on their right to
academic freedom.

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
4. Who may be admitted to study
In the name of academic freedom, once the school has set its standards, it must be
observed, however, should not be used to discriminate against certain students. After
accepting the students upon enrollment, the school cannot break its contractual obligation
on grounds other than those made known to and accepted by the student at the start of the
school year.

17.100 Ronulo vs People GR. No.182483

Facts: Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to marry on 29 March 2003 at
the Sta. Rosa Catholic Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on the day of the wedding, the
church's officiating priest refused to solemnize the marriage because of lack of a marriage
license. With the couple and the guests already dressed for the wedding, they headed to
an Aglipayan Church. The Aglipayan priest, herein petitioner Ronulo, conducted a
ceremony on the same day where the couple took each other as husband and wife in front
of the guests. This was despite Petitioner's knowledge of the couple's lack of marriage
license. Petitioner was eventually charged of violating Article 352 of the RPC for
performing an illegal marriage ceremony. The MTC did not believe Petitioner's defense
that what he did was an act of blessing and was not tantamount to solemnization of
marriage and was found guilty. The decision was affirmed by both the RTC and the CA.

ISSUE: W/N Petitioner committed an illegal marriage.

RULING: Yes. Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized solemnizing officer who
shall perform or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this crime
are:
1. authority of the solemnizing officer; and
2. his performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
The first element is present since Petitioner himself admitted that he has authority to
solemnize a marriage.

The second element is present since the alleged "blessing" by Petitioner is tantamount to
the performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.

There is no prescribed form or rite for the solemnization of a marriage. However, Article
6 of the Family Code provides that it shall be necessary:
1. for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer;
and
2. declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take
each other as husband and wife.
The first requirement is present since petitioner admitted to it. The second requirement is
likewise present since the prosecution, through the testimony of its witnesses, proved that
the contracting parties personally declared that they take each other as husband and wife.

The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is in accordance with the provision of
the Marriage Law, specifically Article 44, which states that:
Section 44. General Penal Clause – Any violation of any provision of this Act not
specifically penalized, or of the regulations to be promulgated by the proper authorities,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred pesos or by imprisonment for
not more than one month, or both, in the discretion of the court.
As such, Petitioner was held guilty of violating Article 352 and was fined P200 as
penalty.