G.R. No. 134372 ; August 22, 2002
MANUEL CAMACHO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. JOVITO A. CORESIS, JR., Graft Investigation Officer I and/or OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN – MINDANAO, SIXTO O. DALEON, AIDA AGULO, DESIDERIO ALABA, NORMA TECSON, and the BOARD OF REGENTS of the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHILIPPINES; SECRETARY RICARDO GLORIA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY RENO CAPINPIN – of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), DR. EDMUNDO B. PRANTILLA, and NEDA REGIONAL DIRECTOR SANTIAGO ENGINCO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel Camacho, Dean of the College of Education of the University of Southeastern Philippines (USP), filed administrative and criminal complaints before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao against respondents Sixto O. Daleon (Professor and OIC of the Graduate School), Aida Agulo, Desiderio Alaba, Norma Tecson (faculty members who were also students), and the USP Board of Regents. The complaints alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019) and arose from Dr. Daleon giving final passing grades (1.0, 1.25, and 1.5) to Agulo, Alaba, and Tecson in the subject Ed.D. 317 during the first semester of 1994-1995 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. Petitioner, upon complaint from other doctoral students about “ghost students,” requested Dr. Daleon for copies of exams and attendance records, which was ignored. Dr. Daleon later admitted making special arrangements without petitioner’s approval. The USP Board of Regents, via Resolution No. 2432, upheld the grades given by Dr. Daleon. The Ombudsman-Mindanao dismissed both the administrative and criminal complaints for insufficiency of evidence and lack of prima facie case. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether or not public respondents (the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao) committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in exonerating Dr. Daleon and the other respondents from administrative and criminal liability.

RULING

No, the public respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of merit and affirmed the Ombudsman’s Resolution. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s factual findings were based on substantial evidence, including Dr. Daleon’s counter-affidavit corroborated by an affidavit from another professor, which stated that the university’s Vice President for Academic Affairs had declared that special arrangements between a professor and a graduate student were allowed on a case-to-case basis. Furthermore, as Officer-In-Charge of the Graduate School, Dr. Daleon had the authority, under Article 140 of the University Code, to modify attendance rules for graduate students. The Board of Regents, in upholding the grades, validated Dr. Daleon’s instructional approach. The Court also upheld the application of the principle of academic freedom, stating that a professor has the freedom to determine the method of teaching and grading that best achieves the course objectives. Petitioner failed to establish that respondents acted with evident bad faith or manifest partiality to constitute a violation of R.A. 3019. The Ombudsman’s dismissal of the complaints was thus in order.