G.R. No. 252063 . February 22, 2023
MANDAUE CITY COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY DR. PAULUS MARIAE L. CAÑETE, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION (CHED), RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Mandaue City College (MCC) was established by a city ordinance in 2005. A controversy arose when its Board of Trustees, in 2007, issued resolutions directing Dr. Paulus Mariae L. Cañete to cease functioning as President and appointing Dr. Susana Cabahug as Caretaker. Dr. Cañete defied this order and continued to operate a school under the MCC name at a separate location (MCC-Cañete), while the city-recognized MCC operated under Dr. Cabahug (MCC-Cabahug). The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) investigated and found both entities lacked the legal mandate to offer higher education programs. It issued cease and desist orders in 2009.
Only MCC-Cabahug complied with CHED’s requirements and was subsequently granted authority to operate. MCC-Cañete failed to comply, leading CHED to issue a Closure Order against it in 2010 and a subsequent Notice to the Public in 2011, warning that its degrees were spurious. MCC-Cañete, represented by Dr. Cañete, filed a petition to nullify these CHED orders before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). It argued that as a college created by ordinance, it had automatic government recognition and did not need CHED’s authority. It further contended that CHED’s power to close schools was merely recommendatory and that the closure order was premature under CHED’s own rules.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether CHED has the authority to issue a closure order against Mandaue City College (MCC-Cañete) for operating higher education programs without the requisite government recognition and authority.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the rulings of the lower courts upholding CHED’s Closure Order and Notice to the Public. The Court held that CHED possesses the requisite authority under Republic Act No. 7722 (The Higher Education Act of 1994). This law transferred the regulation of all higher education institutions from the then Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) to CHED. The Court emphasized that CHED’s power is not merely recommendatory; it includes the specific mandate to “monitor and evaluate the performance of programs and institutions of higher learning” and to “identify, support and develop potential centers of excellence.” This regulatory function necessarily encompasses the authority to impose sanctions, including closure, on institutions operating without the required permit or recognition.
The Court rejected MCC-Cañete’s claim of automatic recognition by virtue of its creation via city ordinance. The establishment of a local college by a local government unit is distinct from the grant of authority to offer specific degree programs, which falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of CHED. Furthermore, the Court found that the entity operated by Dr. Cañete was not the legitimate Mandaue City College recognized by the city government. The city ordinances created only one college, and its lawful governing body, the Board of Trustees, had validly replaced Dr. Cañete. Therefore, MCC-Cañete was an unauthorized entity operating without a mandate from the city and without the necessary permit from CHED. Its operation was illegal, and CHED acted within its statutory powers in ordering its closure to protect the public from unaccredited and substandard education.