G.R. No. 103142 November 8, 1993
MANUELITO A. ISABELO, JR., petitioner, vs. PERPETUAL HELP COLLEGE OF RIZAL, INC., and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuelito Isabelo, Jr., a Bachelor of Science in Criminology student and acting Secretary of the Supreme Student Council at Perpetual Help College of Rizal (PHCR), was invited to a meeting with PHCR officials on May 8, 1991. Prior to the meeting, he was asked to sign Resolution No. 105 implementing a 20% tuition fee increase for SY 1991-1992. He initially refused, asking for two weeks to consult fellow officers, but ultimately signed after the student council presented a 9-point proposal and received an assurance from PHCR that their requests would be considered. On August 6, 1991, PHCR announced DECS approval of the tuition fee increase. The student council filed a motion for reconsideration with DECS, which on August 28, 1991, advised PHCR to hold the collection of the increase in abeyance. Meanwhile, the CMT commandant furnished PHCR a memorandum dated August 20, 1991, listing CMT students, including Isabelo, who were dropped during the first semester, with a recommendation for appropriate action. On September 4, 1991, PHCR circulated a memorandum dropping Isabelo from its list of students, and the Registrar sent him a letter voiding his enrollment for the first semester of SY 1991-1992 due to deficiencies: non-compliance with CMT requirements, no NCEE during admission, official admission credential not submitted, and void declaration of CMT subjects. Beginning September 5, 1991, Isabelo was barred from the school premises. He informed DECS, which on October 15, 1991, issued an order directing PHCR to re-admit Isabelo and allow him to take missed examinations pending final resolution. PHCR did not comply, prompting Isabelo to file a petition for mandamus. The Supreme Court granted a preliminary mandatory injunction for re-admission on June 23, 1992, but PHCR filed a motion for clarification. Isabelo claimed his enrollment was voided due to his opposition to the tuition fee increase, while PHCR invoked academic freedom, stating his enrollment was conditional pending completion of CMT remedial classes, which he failed.

ISSUE

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to compel PHCR and DECS to re-admit Manuelito Isabelo, Jr. as a student.

RULING

The Supreme Court did not issue a writ of mandamus. It held that for mandamus to issue, the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the act demanded, and the respondent must have an imperative duty to perform it. The Court found that there remained unresolved administrative issues requiring factual determination, specifically whether Isabelo deserved to be in the senior class or had school deficiencies to overcome, as claimed by PHCR. The Court, not being a trier of facts, remanded the case to the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) for expeditious determination of these unresolved administrative issues. The Court noted that while academic freedom includes the discretion to admit students, it is not an unabridged license and must be exercised responsibly, with justice, and in good faith. It also observed that the punishment of expulsion appeared disproportionate to the cited CMT deficiencies and that circumstances lent truth to Isabelo’s claim that his opposition to the tuition fee increase influenced PHCR’s action.