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 lettercomplaint 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.

any doubt on their competence and impartiality insofar as this

disciplinary investigation is concerned.

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.

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.

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

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 1967-1969 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 reenrollment 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.

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.

The petitioner is correct in stating that there was a serious

error of law in the appellate court's ruling on due process.

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.

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.

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.