G.R. No. 100588 March 7, 1994
UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, INC., SISTER CONCEPCION CAJILIG, NENALYN ABIODA, MARY ESPINO, RHODORA AZUCENA, MA. DULCE SOCORRO POSA and COSETTE MONTEBLANCO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO H. LARA, EDUARDO MAGANTE, JOSE SANCHO, REYNALDA F. SO and WINNEFRIDA C. VALENZUELA, as parents/guardians of Antonio Marco Ho, Ma. Elanie Magante, Roy D. Sancho, Michael Kim So and Bernardina Cainoy, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents were third-year Nursing students at petitioner University of San Agustin (USA). They were refused re-admission for the summer classes of 1989 and the last two semesters of school year 1989-1990 because they failed to obtain grades of at least 80% in Nursing 104, a major subject, pursuant to the school’s retention policy. The policy required a minimum grade of 80% in any major Nursing subject and in two minor subjects for continued enrollment. The students had been informed of this policy and had signed agreements upon admission, binding themselves to abide by it, including provisions that they could be disqualified for grades below 80% in two minor and any nursing subjects. They also signed “promises to improve” during their third year, agreeing to voluntarily withdraw if they failed to meet the 80% standard. Their grades in Nursing 104 ranged from 77% to 78%, which was above the general passing mark of 75% but below the school’s required 80%. They filed a petition for mandamus before the Regional Trial Court to compel USA to re-admit them, arguing that their right to finish their chosen course was prejudiced. The trial court dismissed the petition, upholding the school’s academic freedom and ruling that mandamus would not lie to compel enrollment of academically deficient students. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ordering USA to re-admit the students, holding that they had no academic deficiency since they obtained passing grades (above 75%) and that the school’s 80% requirement was repugnant to public policy as it violated the students’ constitutional right to continue their course.

ISSUE

May the students, who passed their subjects with grades above 75% but below the school’s required 80% retention grade, compel the school to re-admit them to complete their Nursing course?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s dismissal of the petition. The Court held that the school’s retention policy, requiring a grade of at least 80% in major Nursing subjects for continued enrollment, is a valid exercise of its academic freedom. The policy was made known to the students and their parents, who voluntarily agreed to it by signing admission agreements and “promises to improve.” Academic freedom includes the right of a school to set high standards of proficiency and, in the exercise of reasonable discretion, to determine who may be admitted to study and who may continue in the course. The students’ grades of 77% and 78%, while passing, did not meet the school’s specific and contractually agreed-upon standards for the Nursing program. Their failure to meet this standard constitutes academic deficiency, which is a valid ground for the school’s refusal to re-admit them under Section 9(2) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 (The Education Act of 1982). The writ of mandamus does not lie to compel the school to re-admit them, as the school’s decision was a discretionary act based on academic grounds. The constitutional right of students to choose their field of study and continue their course is subject to the academic rules and standards of the institution.