128. U.P.

vs Ligot-Telan 227 SCRA 644

FACTS:
THE UP Board of Regents imposed on Nadal the penalties of suspension for one year,
non-issuance of any certificate of good moral character during the suspension and/or as
long as Nadal has not reimbursed the STFAP benefits he had received with 12%
interest per annum and non issuance of his transcript of records until he has settled his
financial obligations with the university. The disciplinary action is meted after finally
rendering a guilty verdict on Nadals alleged willful withholding of the following
information in his application for scholarship tantamount to acts of dishonesty, viz: (1)
that he has and maintains a car and (2) the income of his mother in the USA in support
of the studies of his brothers. Nadal complained that he was not afforded due process
when, after the Board Meeting on his case on March 28, 1993 that resulted in a decision
of NOT GUILTY in his favor, the Chairman of the UP Board of Regents, without notice
to the petitioner, called another meeting the following day to deliberate on the
Chairmans Motion for Reconsideration, which this time resulted in a decision of
GUILTY. Upon petition, Nadal was granted his action for mandamus with preliminary
injunction.

ISSUE: WON Nadal was denied due process.

HELD:
No. It is gross error to equate due process in the instant case with the sending of notice
of the March 29, 1993 BOR meeting. University rules do not require the attendance in
BOR meetings of individuals whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the
Board. At no time did respondent complain of lack of notice given to him to attend any of
the regular and special BOR meetings where his case was up for deliberation. Let it not
be forgotten that respondent aspires to join the ranks of professionals who would uphold
truth at all costs so that justice may prevail. Nadal has sufficiently proven to have
violated his undertaking to divulge all information needed when he applied for the
benefits of the STFAP. Unlike in criminal cases which require proof beyond reasonable
doubt as basis for a judgment, in administrative or quasi-judicial proceedings, only
substantial evidence is required, that which means a reasonable mind might accept a
relevant evidence as adequate to support a conclusion.