Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No.

L-45551 February 16, 1982 JOSE S. ANGELES and GILBERTO G. MERCADO, in his capacity as Dean of Institute of Technology, FEU, petitioners, vs. HON. RAFAEL S. SISON, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, EDGARDO PICAR and WILFREDO PATAWARAN, represented by his father WENCESLAO PATAWARAN, respondents.

FERNANDEZ, J.: This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch XXVII, dated December 29, 1976 in Civil Case No. 101222 entitled, "Edgardo Picar and Wilfredo Patawaran, represented by his father, Wenceslao Patawaran, Plaintiffs, versus Jose S. Angeles, Dean Gilberto G. Mercado in his capacity as Dean of the Institute of Technology, Defendants," the dispositive part of which reads: WHEREFORE, the petition prayed for by the plaintiffs is hereby GRANTED, and the defendants are hereby perpetually enjoined from further proceeding with the administrative investigation against the plaintiffs. So ordered. 1 The records disclose that sometime in November 1975 the petitioner, Jose Angeles, initiated an administrative case before the Office of the Dean, Gilberto G. Mercado, of the Institute of Technology, Far Eastern University, by filing a complaint 2 against the private respondents Edgardo Picar and Wilfredo Patawaran for alleged breach of the university's rules and regulations. In the said complaint, it is alleged that on October 20, 1975, Jose Angeles, a professor in the Institute of Technology of Far Eastern University (FEU), was assaulted by Edgardo Picar and Wilfredo Patawaran, both students in mechanical engineering in the said institute at the Oak Barrel Restaurant located at P. Gomez Street, Quiapo, Manila on the occasion of the birthday party of Professor Alfonso Bernabe, the Secretary of the Institute of Technology of FEU. The same incident became also the subject of a criminal complaint for assault against a person in authority instituted by the petitioner Jose Angeles in the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila against the private respondents Picar and Patawaran. Later, the complaint was ammended to assault and/or physical injuries. The case was dismissed as against private respondent Wilfredo Patawaran but an information for slight physical injuries was filed against private respondent Edgardo Picar in the City Court of Manila. 3 However, during the pendency of this case, on July 8, 1977, the criminal case for slight physical injuries against Edgardo Picar was dismissed on the basis of an affidavit of desistance 4 submitted by petitioner Jose Angeles before the City Court of Manila, Branch VIII, stating among others, that the subject incident was only "a result of a misunderstanding and nobody is to be blamed."

Acting on the administrative complaint filed before his Office by the petitioner Jose Angeles, the Dean of the Institute, petitioner Gilberto Mercado, immediately created a committee headed by him to investigate the complaint. The private respondents Picar and Patawaran questioned the authority of the Dean and his committee to conduct the administrative investigation because the act complained of the alleged assault of Professor Angeles at the Oak Barrel Restaurant is not within his authority to investigate. They contend that the Dean's authority to investigate under the Code of Conduct of FEU (as amended) from where he derives that power, is limited to acts done or committed within the premises of the compound of the University. The Dean proceeded to conduct the challenged administrative investigation. Thus the private respondents, Picar and Patawaran, the latter being then a minor, was represented by his father, Wenceslao Patawaran, filed on February 13, 1976 in the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint 5 with petition for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the petitioners from proceeding with the administrative investigation against the private respondents. Forthwith, the respondent judge issued on the same day, February 13, 1976, an Order 6 temporarily restraining the petitioners from further proceeding with the administrative investigation against the private respondents, and setting the motion for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction for hearing. On March 10, 1976, the petitioners filed their answer to the complaint and an opposition to the petition for injunction. 7 Over the opposition of the petitioners, the respondent Judge issued an Order 8 on June 7, 1976 granting the writ of preliminary injunction and enjoining the petitioners from proceeding with the administrative investigation of private respondents until further orders from the Court. On July 13, 1976, the petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the order of the respondent judge and to lift the order granting plaintiffs' petition for preliminary injunction. 9 The private respondents opposed the said motion for reconsideration on August 10, 1976. 10 On October 11, 1976, the respondent Judge issued an order denying the petitioners' motion for reconsideration. 11 Consequently, the petitioners filed on November 17, 1976, a motion for summary judgment stating, among others, that "since the issue before this Court is one of law and not of fact, and therefore, there exists no genuine controversy as to any material fact, summary judgment will lie to effectuate the prompt disposition of this case." 12 Finding no objection to the rendition of a summary judgment, the private respondents filed to that effect a manifestation 13 on December 8, 1976. On December 29, 1976, the respondent judge rendered the decision under review, perpetually enjoining the petitioners from further proceeding with the administrative investigation against the private respondents. From this decision, the petitioners interposed an appeal to this Court, assigning the following as errors: I

THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT FAR EASTERN UNIVERSITY ("FEU", FOR BREVITY), THROUGH PETITIONER GILBERTO G. MERCADO WHO IS THE DEAN OF THE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO INVESTIGATE AND DISCIPLINE THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS, WHO ARE STUDENTS OF SAID UNIVERSITY, FOR THEIR CONDUCT OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL HOURS AND NOT WITHIN THE SCHOOL PREMISES WHICH DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE GOOD ORDER AND WELFARE OF THE SCHOOL. II THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE SERVICE MANUAL FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS APPLIES TO, AND OVERRIDES THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF FEU A PRIVATE SCHOOL, UPON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL. III THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE PRIVATE RESPONDENTS IN MAULING PETITIONER JOSE S. ANGELES, A FACULTY MEMBER OF FEU, OUTSIDE THE PREMISES OF THE SCHOOL IS NOT PRESCRIBED BY THE RULES AND REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SERVICE MANUAL FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS . IV THE RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THAT FEU, THROUGH PETITIONER GILBERTO G. MERCADO, IS LEGALLY INHIBITED FROM INVESTIGATING PRIVATE RESPONDENTS FOR CONDUCT PRESCRIBED BY ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS BECAUSE OF THE PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST SAID RESPONDENTS. 14 The main legal issue presented in this petition is whether a school through its duly authorized representative has the jurisdiction to investigate its student or students for an alleged misconduct committed outside the school premises and beyond school hours. The petitioners contend that the mauling incident, subject matter of this case, was sought to be investigated under and pursuant to the following rules and regulations of the Manual of Registration for Private Schools. 15 (1) Paragraph l45, Section IX: Every private school is required to maintain good school discipline. No cruel or physically harmful punishment shall be imposed nor shall corporal punishment be countenanced. The school rules governing discipline and the corresponding sanctions therefor must be clearly specified and defined in writing and made known to the students and/or their parents or guardians. Schools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate such rules and regulations as they may deem necessary from time to time effective as of the promulgation unless otherwise specified.

No penalty shall be imposed upon any student, except for cause as defined in this Manual and/or in the school's rules and regulations duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall have been conducted. (2) Paragraph l46, Section IX: The three categories of disciplinary administrative sanctions which may be imposed upon erring students, commensurate with the nature and gravity of the violation of school rules and regulations committed, are: a. Dropping a school may drop from its rolls during the school year or term a student who is considered undesirable. The student who is dropped should be issued immediately his transfer credentials. b. Suspension a school may suspend an erring student during the school year or term for a maximum period not exceeding 20% of the prescribed school days. Suspension which will involve the loss of the entire year or term shall not be effective unless approved by the Director of Private Schools. c. Expulsion the penalty of expulsion is an extreme form of administrative sanction which debars the student from all public and private schools. To be valid and effective the penalty of expulsion requires the approval of the Secretary of Education. Expulsion is usually considered proper punishment for gross misconduct or dishonesty and/or such offenses as hazing, carrying deadly weapons, immorality, drunkenness, vandalism, hooliganism, assaulting a teacher or any other school authority, or his agent or student, instigating, leading or participating in concerted activities leading to a stoppage of classes, preventing or threatening students or faculty members or school authorities from discharging their duties, or from attending classes or entering the school premises, forging or tampering (with) school records or transfer forms, or securing or using such forged transfer credentials. In accordance with the above-quoted provision, the Advisory Council of FEU approved on December 2, 1971, the Code of Conduct 16 for all students to observe. The pertinent articles provide: Article 1 General Behavior Section 2. Students shall not use language or commit acts which are disrespectful, vulgar, or indecent, or which in any manner may cause or tend to cause molestation or injury to other members of the university community. xxx xxx xxx Article V Penalties Section 1. Violation of any of the provisions of this Code of Conduct shall be punished, after due investigation by reprimand, dropping, suspension or expulsion in accordance with the Manual of Regulation for Private Schools taking into account the following factors: a) previous record of the student;

b) inherent gravity of the offense committed; c) position of the aggrieved person d) established precedents; and e) other related circumstances, such as the pertinent and applicable mitigating and aggravating circumstances found in the Revised Penal Code. Section 2. In cases not covered by this Code, the categories of disciplinary administrative sanctions contained in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools shall apply upon the ground provided in said Manual. xxx xxx xxx Article VI Enforcement Section 1. The Deans and Principals shall enforce the provision of this Code of Conduct. There shall be created in each Institute and School a committee on Discipline, Manners and Morals, composed of two faculty members and one student, all appointed by the Dean or Principal, as the case may be, to investigate cases of violations of this Code of Conduct referred to it by the corresponding Dean or Principal. Section 4. In cases involving a student and a faculty member, the Dean or the Principal concerned shall conduct the hearing. Where the case involves a student and an administrative personnel, the President may appoint a Committee to investigate the same which shall submit its findings and recommendations to the President for decision. Thus, the petitioner Mercado contends that in his capacity as Dean of the Institute of Technology, he is charged under Sections 1 and 4 of Article VI of the Code of Conduct of FEU with the duty of conducting a hearing in cases involving a student and a faculty member in furtherance of the university's legally recognized right to discipline its students. On the other hand, the private respondents submit that to apply the above-quoted rules to the instant case would be "capricious, malicious, palpably unreasonable, arbitrary or a clear abuse of discretion" 17 and that "any investigation by the school of the said incident will be violative of the private respondents' right to privacy and peace of mind." 18 The respondent judge opined that the instant case falls under the general rule that the power of the school ends at the border of its campus. 19 His basis is Section 9, paragraph 145 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools the opening paragraph of which states: "Every private school is required to maintain good school discipline." He explains thus: What other interpretation could be placed on the phrase "school discipline" except that it is a norm of action that must be observed within a school. If the rules and regulations provided by school authorities shall be deemed to extend outside of school premises and activities, the term "school discipline" would be a misnomer. We

must consider the fact that FEU as an institution can exercise only such powers expressly conferred, so that any authority not so given shall be deemed to be withheld. In the absence of an express provision on this matter, this Court could not see any reason why paragraph 155 of the Service Manual relative to public schools should not be applied by way of analogy considering that there is actually no difference between a private and a public school. The objective for the promulgation of rules and regulations with respect to both institutions are one and the same. Section 155, among others, states: School authorities are not, under ordinary circumstances, warranted in applying school punishment of pupils for acts committed outside of the jurisdiction of the school building and grounds ... As a rule ... the authority and responsibility of the school stop at the border of the school grounds, and any action taken for acts committed without these boundaries should in general be left to the Police authorities, the courts of justice and the family concerned. Of course, there are certain exceptions as correctly pointed out by the defendants, which are also provided in the same Section 155, but then, considering that defendants moved for a summary judgment without presenting any evidence to prove that the case of the plaintiffs fall under any of the aforequoted exceptions, the Court has no other alternative except to apply the general rule. 20 Implicit in Paragraph 155 of the Service Manual, Fourth Revision quoted by the respondent judge and reproduced as follows: A pupil who has committed an immoral act outside of the school jurisdiction would be a source of danger to other pupils in the school building, and such pupil might with reason be excluded from the school. There are certain borderline cases, however, which are hard to decide, and for which no definite rules can be laid down. Should pupils in a concerted effort attempt to run a teacher out of town or try to make life outside of school unbearable for him, such action might well be taken as having a direct and vital effect on the school and therefore as coming under school discipline. Pupils engaged in school matters elsewhere than on the school grounds, such as school athletic affairs and trips, parades, literary contests, etc., are considered under the jurisdiction of the school. is the recognition of the school's authority and power to expel a pupil who has committed an immoral act outside of the school premises since the latter would be a "source of danger to other pupils in the school building." If the power to expel or to punish an immoral act committed outside the school premises is recognized in this provision, why is the power to investigate the act of a student in mauling a faculty member outside the school premises not be accorded the same recognition? It is thus error for respondent judge to state that there is nothing in the authorities relied upon by the defendants, petitioners herein, which compels any school authority to administratively discipline students for incidents committed outside the school compound on an occasion which is not schoolsponsored or connected with any activity of the school. A college or any school for that matter, has a dual responsibility to its students. One is to provide opportunities for learning and the other is to help them grow and develop into mature, responsible,

effective and worthy citizens of the community. Discipline is one of the means to carry out the second responsibility. Thus, there can be no doubt that the establishment of an educational institution requires rules and regulations necessary for the maintenance of an orderly educational program and the creation of an educational environment conducive to learning. Such rules and regulations are equally necessary for the protection of the students, faculty, and property. The power of school officials to investigate, an adjunct of its power to suspend or expel, is a necessary corollary to the enforcement of such rules and regulations and the maintenance of a safe and orderly educational environment conducive to learning. The respondent judge correctly stated that the general rule is that the authority of the school is coextensive with its territorial jurisdiction, or its school grounds, so that any action taken for acts committed outside the school premises should, in general, be left to the police authorities, the courts of justice, and the family concerned. 21 However, this rule is not rigid or one without exceptions. It is the better view that there are instances when the school might be called upon to exercise its power over its student or students for acts committed outside the school and beyond school hours in the following: a) In cases of violations of school policies or regulations occurring in connection with a school sponsored activity off-campus; or 22 b) In cases where the misconduct of the student involves his status as a student or affects the good name or reputation of the school. Common sense dictates that the school retains its power to compel its students in or off-campus to a norm of conduct compatible with their standing as members of the academic community. Hence, when as in the case at bar, the conduct complained of directly affects the suitability of the alleged violators as students, there is no reason why the school can not impose the same disciplinary action as when the act took place inside the campus. There is a showing from the records of this case that the proximate cause of the alleged mauling incident, subject of the administrative investigation in question, is attributable to the professorstudent relationship of the parties concerned. The sworn statement 23 of the petitioner Jose Angeles submitted to the petitioner Dean Gilberto Mercado, as Head of the Investigating Committee states, inter alia: 4. That sometime after the end of this first semester mentioned earlier, Eduardo Picar under the influence of liquor accosted me along the corridor of the Institute building and asked for an explanation why Mr. Garcia gave him a failing grade in Shop 302. I told him I had no Idea. 5. That from this time on, said Picar stopped being cordial to me and sometimes would look daggers at me whenever we meet on the campus. 6. That also sometime last July 1975, Wilfredo Patawaran accosted me along the corridors of the Technology building and asked me to enroll him in my class. But I told him that I had already enough students for one section.

7. That from this time on, this Patawaran avoided me and together with Picar they would show their contempt of me, by facial expressions, whenever we met on the corridors of the Technology building or in the campus. These statements clearly establish the necessity for an Administrative investigation of the alleged mauling incident because it cannot be denied that the same is a violation of the norms of decency and good taste which is antithetical to one of the school's duties vis-a-vis the family, that of developing the moral character of the youth. 24 Moreover, from the facts of record, the alleged mauling of petitioner Jose Angeles at the Oak Barrel Restaurant in Quiapo, Manila can be regarded as a continuation or the climax of the alleged display of animosities by private respondents Picar and Patawaran towards Angeles which began at the corridors of the FEU Institute of Technology building. Precisely, the administrative investigation in question is proper in order that the duly authorized school officials can determine whether the continued presence of private respondents, Picar and Patawaran, as students of FEU and/or petitioner, Jose Angeles, as faculty member, within the university premises is detrimental to the maintenance of a moral climate conducive to learning. Furthermore, the true test of a school's right to investigate, or otherwise, suspend or expel a student for a misconduct committed outside the school premises and beyond school hours is not the time or place of the offense, but its effect upon the morale and efficiency of the school and whether it, in fact, is adverse to the school's good order welfare and the advancement of its students. Likewise the power of the school over its students does not cease absolutely when they leave the school premises, and that conduct outside of school hours may subject a student to school discipline if it directly affects the good order and welfare of the school or has a direct and immediate effect on the discipline or general welfare of the school. The private respondent's averment that the dismissal of the criminal case against private respondent Picar upon the filing of the affidavit of desistance of petitioner Jose Angeles has the effect of rendering this instant petition moot and academic 25 is unmeritorious. The pendency or the dismissal of the criminal action does not abate the administrative proceeding which involves the same cause of action. 26 The administrative action before the school authorities can proceed independently of the criminal action because these two actions are based on different considerations. In the former, the private respondent's suitability or propriety as a student which is the paramount concern and interest of the school is involved, while in the latter, what is at stake is his being a citizen who is subject to the penal statutes and is the primary concern of the State. Hence, there being no withdrawal of the complaint filed by petitioner Jose Angeles before the petitioner Dean Gilberto Mercado, the administrative investigation should proceed. Therefore, as aptly stated by the petitioners 27 to affirm the decision of the respondent Judge would give nothing less than a license to students of a school, public or private, to assault and maul their teachers or professors without fear of being subjected to discipline by the school as long as the assault takes place off-campus or beyond school hours. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila sought to be reviewed is hereby set aside and the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the respondent judge is hereby dissolved, without pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED. Teehankee (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, Melencio-Herrera and Plana, JJ., concur.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila SECOND DIVISION G.R. No. L-56180 October 16, 1986 ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and SPOUSES ROMEO G. GUANZON and TERESITA REGALADO, respondents. Ernesto P. Pangalangan for petitioner. Mirano, Mirano & Associates for private respondents.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: In a letter-complaint dated December 13, 1967 addressed to Rev. William Welsh S.J., Dean of Men, Dean of Resident Students, and Chairman of the Board of Discipline, College of Arts and Sciences, Ateneo de Manila, Carmelita Mateo, a waitress in the cafeteria of Cervini Hall inside the university campus charged Juan Ramon Guanzon, son of private respondents Romeo Guanzon and Teresita Regalado, and a boarder and first year student of the university with unbecoming conduct committed on December 12, 1967 at about 5:15 in the evening at the Cervini Hall's cafeteria, as follows: xxx xxx xxx Mr. Guanzon, a boarder at Cervini who I think comes from Bacolod, was asking for "siopao." I was at the counter and I told him that the "siopao" had still to be heated and asked him to wait for a while. Then Mr. Guanzon started mumbling bad words directed to me, in the hearing presence of other boarders. I asked him to stop cursing, and he told me that was none of my business. Since he seemed impatient, I was going to give back his money without any contempt. (sic) He retorted that he did not like to accept the money. He got madder and started to curse again. Then he threatened to strike me with his fist. I tried to avoid this. But then he actually struck me in my left temple. Before he could strike again, his fellow boarders held him and Dr. Bella and Leyes coaxed him to stop; I got hold of a bottle so I could dodge him. It was then that Fr. Campbell arrived. The incident was hidden from Fr. Campbell by the boarders. I could not tell him myself as I had gone into the kitchen crying because I was hurt. The university conducted an investigation of the slapping incident. On the basis of the investigation results, Juan Ramon was dismissed from the university. The dismissal of Juan Ramon triggered off the filing of a complaint for damages by his parents against the university in the then Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental at Bacolod City. The complaint states that Juan Ramon was expelled from school without giving him a fair trial in violation of his right to due process and that they are prominent and well known residents of Bacolod City,

with the unceremonious expulsion of their son causing them actual, moral, and exemplary damages as well as attorney's fees. In its answer, the university denied the material allegations of the complaint and justified the dismissal of Juan Ramon on the ground that his unbecoming behavior is contrary to good morals, proper decorum, and civility, that such behavior subjected him as a student to the university's disciplinary regulations' action and sanction and that the university has the sole prerogative and authority at any time to drop from the school a student found to be undesirable in order to preserve and maintain its integrity and discipline so indispensable for its existence as an institution of learning. After due trial, the lower court found for the Guanzons and ordered the university to pay them P92.00 as actual damages; P50,000.00 as moral damages; P5,000.00 as attorney's fees and to pay the costs of the suit. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals by the university, the trial court's decision was initially reversed and set aside. The complaint was dismissed. However, upon motion for reconsideration filed by the Guanzons, the appellate court reversed its decision and set it aside through a special division of five. In the resolution issued by the appellate court, the lower court's decision was reinstated. The motion for reconsideration had to be referred to a special division of five in view of the failure to reach unanimity on the resolution of the motion, the vote of the regular division having become 2 to 1. The petitioner now asks us to review and reverse the resolution of the division of five on the following grounds: ONE THE RESOLUTION OF THE DIVISION OF FIVE COMMITTED A SERIOUS AND GRAVE ERROR OF LAW IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS WERE NOT AFFORDED DUE PROCESS IN THE DISCIPLINE CASE AGAINST THEIR SON, JUAN RAMON GUANZON. TWO THE RESOLUTION OF THE DIVISION OF FIVE ERRONEOUSLY RULED THAT THE RESORT TO JUDICIAL REMEDY BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS DID NOT VIOLATE THE RULE ON FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATION ACTION OR EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. THREE THE FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE DIVISION OF FIVE ARE TAINTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION, OR ARE CONFLICTING, OR CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. In reversing its own decision, the appellate court relied heavily on the findings of the Director of Private Schools affirmed by the Minister of Education and the findings of the lower Court to the effect that due process of law was not observed by the petitioner when it dismissed the private respondents' son Juan Ramon. The resolution invoked the rule that findings of facts by administrative officers in matters falling within their competence will not generally be reviewed by the

courts, as well as the principle that findings of facts of the trial court are entitled to great weight and should not be disturbed on appeal. The conclusions of the Court of Appeals in its split decision are not sustained by the facts on record. The statement regarding the finality given to factual findings of trial courts and administrative tribunals is correct if treated as a general principle. The general principle, however, is subject to well established exceptions. We disregard the factual findings of trial courts when-(l) the conclusion is a finding grounded on speculations, surmises, and conjectures; (2) the inferences made are manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible; (3) there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) there is a misapprehension of facts; and (5) the court, in arriving at its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same are contrary to the admissions of the parties or the evidence presented. (Gomez v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 135 SCRA 620; Republic v. Court of Appeals, 132 SCRA 514; Carolina Industries, Inc. v. CMS Stock Brokerage, Inc., 97 SCRA 734; and Bacayo v. Genato, 135 SCRA 668). A similar rule applies to administrative agencies. By reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from the handling of specific matters falling under their respective jurisdictions, we ordinarily accord respect if not finality to factual findings of administrative tribunals. However, there are exceptions to this rule and judicial power asserts itself whenever the factual findings are not supported by evidence; where the findings are vitiated by fraud, imposition, or collusion; where the procedure which led to the factual findings is irregular; when palpable errors are committed; or when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is manifest. (International Hardwood and Veneer Co., of the Philippines v. Leogardo, 117 SCRA 967; Baguio Country Club Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 118 SCRA 557; Sichangco v. Commissioner of Immigration, 94 SCRA 61; and Eusebio v. Sociedad Agricola de Balarin, 16 SCRA 569). The Court of Appeals ruled that Juan Ramon Guanzon was not accorded due process. We fail to see what, in the records, made the respondent court reverse its earlier and correct finding that there was due process. The original decision, penned by then Associate and now Presiding Justice Emilio A. Gancayco reviews the facts on record to show that the procedures in the expulsion case were fair, open, exhaustive, and adequate. The decision states: First, after the slapping incident which happened on December 12, 1967, Fr. Welsh in his capacity as Chairman of the Board of Discipline upon receipt of the lettercomplaint (Exh. 2) of Carmelita Mateo conducted a preliminary inquiry by interviewing the companions and friends of Juan Ramon Guanzon who were also at the cafeteria. They confirmed the incident in question. (Exhs. 5, 6, 7 and 9). Second, Fr. Welsh, finding that there was probable cause against Mr. Guanzon, prepared a memorandum to the members of the Board of Discipline dated December 16, 1967 (Exh. 8) and delivered a copy each to Fr. Francisco Perez, Dr. Amada Capawan, Mr. Piccio and Dr. Reyes.

Third, on December 14, 1967, Mr. Guanzon was fully informed of the accusation against him when Fr. Welsh read the letter-complaint of Carmelita Mateo and he admitted the truth of the charge. (tsn., pp. 38-39, May 9, 1970; Exh. 4). Fourth, Fr. Welsh also sent separate letters to Rev. Antonio Cuna, Student Counselor of the College of Arts and Sciences dated December 18, 1967 and Rev. James Culligan, Director of Guidance of the College of Arts and Sciences dated December 18, 1967 seeking any information for guidance in the action of the Board of Discipline regarding the case of Mr. Guanzon. (Exhs. 10-11) Fifth, notice of the meeting of the Board of Discipline set on December 19, 1967 was posted at the Bulletin Board of the College of Arts and Sciences and also at Dormitory Halls (tsn., pp. 21-22, July 21, 1970) The Secretary of the Dean of Discipline personally notified Mr. Guanzon of the meeting of the Board on December 19, 1967, he was told to seek the help of his guardians, parents and friends including the student counsellors in the residence halls and College of Arts and Sciences. (tsn., p. 18, July 21, 1970) Sixth, despite notice of the Board of Discipline on December 19, 1967, Mr. Guanzon did not care to inform his parents or guardian knowing fully well the seriousness of the offense he had committed and instead he spoke for himself and admitted to have slapped Carmelita Mateo. He then asked that he be excused as he wanted to catch the boat for Bacolod City for the Christmas vacation. Seventh, the decision of the Board of Discipline was unanimous in dropping from the rolls of students Mr. Guanzon (Exh. 12) which was elevated to the office of the Dean of Arts and Sciences, Rev. Joseph A. Galdon, who after a review of the case found no ground to reverse the decision of the Board of Discipline. (Exh. 13) The case was finally elevated to the President of the Ateneo University who sustained the decision of the Board of Discipline (Exh. 21-A, p. 6) A motion for reconsideration was filed by the President of the Student Council in behalf of Mr. Guanzon (Exh. 15) but the same was denied by the President of the University. Eighth, when the decision of the Board of Discipline was about to be carried out, Mr. Guanzon voluntarily applied for honorable dismissal. He went around to the officials of the university to obtain his clearance and this was approved on January 8, 1968. (Exh. 3, tsn., p. 58, May 6, 1970) Ninth, Mr. Romeo Guanzon, father of Juan Ramon Guanzon arranged for full and complete refund of his tuition fee for the entire second semester of the school year 1967-68. Juan Ramon was never out of school. He was admitted at the De la Salle College of Bacolod City and later transferred to another Jesuit School. From the above proceedings that transpired it can not be said that Juan Ramon Guanzon was denied due proems of law. On the contrary, we find that he was given the full opportunity to be heard to be fully informed of the charge against him and to be confronted of the witnesses face to face. And since he chose to remain silent and did not bother to inform his parents or guardian about the disciplinary action taken against him by the defendant university, neither he nor his parents should find reason to complain. xxx xxx xxx

When the letter-complaint was read to Juan Ramon, he admitted the altercation with the waitress and his slapping her on the face. Rev. Welsh did not stop with the admission. He interviewed Eric Tagle, Danny Go, Roberto Beriber, and Jose Reyes, friends of Juan Ramon who were present during the incident. The Board of Discipline was made up of distinguished members of the faculty-Fr. Francisco Perez, Biology Department Chairman; Dr. Amando Capawan, a Chemistry professor; Assistant Dean Piccio of the College; and Dr. Reyes of the same College. There is nothing in the records to cast any doubt on their competence and impartiality insofar as this disciplinary investigation is concerned. Juan Ramon himself appeared before the Board of Discipline. He admitted the slapping incident, then begged to be excused so he could catch the boat for Bacolod City. Juan Ramon, therefore, was given notice of the proceedings; he actually appeared to present his side; the investigating board acted fairly and objectively; and all requisites of administrative due process were met. We do not share the appellate court's view that there was no due process because the private respondents, the parents of Juan Ramon were not given any notice of the proceedings. Juan Ramon, who at the time was 18 years of age, was already a college student, intelligent and mature enough to know his responsibilities. In fact, in the interview with Rev. Welsh, he even asked if he would be expelled because of the incident. He was fully cognizant of the gravity of the offense he committed. When informed about the December 19, 1967 meeting of the Board of Discipline, he was asked to seek advice and assistance from his guardian and/or parents. In the natural course of things, Juan Ramon is assumed to have reported this serious matter to his parents. The fact that he chose to remain silent and did not inform them about his case, not even when he went home to Bacolod City for his Christmas vacation, was not the fault of the petitioner university. Moreover, notwithstanding the non-participation of the private respondents, the university, as stated earlier, undertook a fair and objective investigation of the slapping incident. Due process in administrative proceedings also requires consideration of the evidence presented and the existence of evidence to support the decision (Halili v. Court of Industrial Relations, 136 SCRA 112). While it may be true that Carmelita Mateo was not entirely blameless for what happened to her because she also shouted at Juan Ramon and tried to hit him with a cardboard box top, this did not justify Juan Ramon's slapping her in the face. The evidence clearly shows that the altercation started with Juan Ramon's utterance of the offensive language "bilat ni bay," an Ilongo phrase which means sex organ of a woman. It was but normal on the part of Mateo to react to the nasty remark. Moreover, Roberto Beriber, a friend of Juan Ramon who was present during the incident told Rev. Welsh during the investigation of the case that Juan Ramon made threatening gestures at Mateo prompting her to pick up a cardboard box top which she threw at Juan Ramon. The incident was in public thus adding to the humiliation of Carmelita Mateo. There was "unbecoming conduct" and pursuant to the Rules of Discipline and Code of Ethics of the university, specifically under the 19671969 Catalog containing the rules and academic regulations (Exhibit 19), this offense constituted a ground for dismissal from the college. The action of the petitioner is sanctioned by law. Section 107 of the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools recognizes violation of disciplinary regulations as valid ground for refusing re-enrollment of a student (Tangonan v. Pano, 137 SCRA 245).

Before Juan Ramon was admitted to enroll, he received (1) the College of Arts and Sciences Handbook containing the general regulations of the school and the 1967-1969 catalog of the College of Arts and Sciences containing the disciplinary rules and academic regulations and (2) a copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Cervini-Elizo Halls of the petitioner university one of the provisions of which is as follows: under the title "Dining Room"-"The kitchen help and server should always be treated with civility." Miss Mateo was employed as a waitress and precisely because of her service to boarders, not to mention her sex, she deserved more respect and gracious treatment. The petitioner is correct in stating that there was a serious error of law in the appellate court's ruling on due process. The petitioner raises the issue of "exhaustion of administrative remedies" in view of its pending appeal from the decision of the Ministry of Education to the President of the Philippines. It argues that the private respondents' complaint for recovery of damages filed in the lower court was premature. The issue raised in court was whether or not the private respondents can recover damages as a result of the dismissal of their son from the petitioner university. This is a purely legal question and nothing of an administrative nature is to or can be done. (Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230; Tapales v. University of the Philippines, 7 SCRA 553; Limoico v. Board of Administrators, (PVA), 133 SCRA 43; Malabanan v. Ramonte, 129 SCRA 359). The case was brought pursuant to the law on damages provided in the Civil Code. The jurisdiction to try the case belongs to the civil courts. There was no need to await action from Malacaang. This brings us to the final issue which is whether or not the private respondents are entitled to damages. There is no basis for the recovery of damages. Juan Ramon was afforded due process of law. The penalty is based on reasonable rules and regulations applicable to all students guilty of the same offense. He never was out of school. Before the decision could be implemented, Juan Ramon asked for an honorable dismissal which was granted. He then enrolled at the De la Salle University of Bacolod City and later transferred to another Jesuit school Moreover, his full and complete tuition fees for the second semester were refunded through the representation of Mr. Romeo Guanzon, Juan Ramon's father. It is unfortunate of the parents suffered some embarrassment because of the incident. However, their predicament arose from the misconduct of their own son who, in the exuberance of youth and unfortunate loss of self control, did something which he must have, later, regretted. There was no bad faith on the part of the university. In fact, the college authorities deferred any undue action until a definitive decision had been rendered. The whole procedure of the disciplinary process was set up to protect the privacy of the student involved. There is absolutely no indication ot malice,. fraud, and improper or willful motives or conduct on the part of the Ateneo de Manila University in this case. WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. The appellate court's resolution dated January 26, 1981 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The appellate court's decision dated March 15, 1979 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED. Feria (Chairman), Fernan, Paras and Feliciano, JJ., concur. Alampay, J., took no part.