DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY VS. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.WILFREDO D.

REYES, in his
capacityas Presiding Judge of Branch 36, Regional Trial Court of Manila, THE COMMISSION
ON HIGHEREDUCATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION CULTURE AND SPORTS, ALVIN
AGUILAR, JAMES PAUL BUNGUBUNG, RICHARD REVERENTE and ROBERTO VALDES, JR., G.R.
No. 127980, December 19, 2007
REYES, R.T., J.:
THE FACTS:
PRIVATE respondents Alvin Aguilar, James Paul Bungubung, Richard Reverente and Roberto
Valdes, Jr. are members of Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity who were expelled by the De La Salle
University (DLSU) and College of Saint Benilde (CSB)[1][1] Joint Discipline Board because of their
involvement in an offensive action causing injuries to petitioner James Yap and three other
student members of Domino Lux Fraternity.
On March 29, 1995, James Yap was eating his dinner alone in Manangs Restaurant near La
Salle, when he overheard two men bad-mouthing and apparently angry at Domino Lux. He
ignored the comments of the two. When he arrived at his boarding house, he mentioned the
remarks to his two other brods while watching television. These two brods had earlier
finished eating their dinner at Manangs. Then, the three, together with four other persons
went back to Manangs and confronted the two who were still in the restaurant. By admission
of respondent Bungubung in his testimony, one of the two was a member of the Tau Gamma
Phi Fraternity. There was no rumble or physical violence then.
After this incident, a meeting was conducted between the two heads of the fraternity through
the intercession of the Student Council. The Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity was asking for an
apology. Kailangan ng apology in the words of respondent Aguilar. But no apology was
made.
On March 25, 1995, Ten minutes before his next class at 6:00 p.m., James Yap went out of
the campus using the Engineering Gate to buy candies across Taft Avenue. As he was about to
re-cross Taft Avenue, he heard heavy footsteps at his back. Eight to ten guys were running
towards him. He panicked. He did not know what to do. Then, respondent Bungubung
punched him in the head with something heavy in his hands parang knuckles.
Respondents Reverente and Lee were behind Yap, punching him. Respondents Bungubung and
Valdes who were in front of him, were also punching him. As he was lying on the street,
respondent Aguilar kicked him. People shouted; guards arrived; and the group of attackers
left. Yap could not recognize the other members of the group who attacked him. With
respect to respondent Papio, Mr. Yap said hindi ko nakita ang mukha niya, hindi ko nakita
sumuntok siya. What Mr. Yap saw was a long haired guy also running with the group.
The mauling incidents were a result of a fraternity war. The victims, namely: petitioner
James Yap and Dennis Pascual, Ericson Cano, and Michael Perez, are members of the Domino

Lux Fraternity, while the alleged assailants, private respondents Alvin Aguilar, James Paul
Bungubung, Richard Reverente and Roberto Valdes, Jr. are members of Tau Gamma Phi
Fraternity, a rival fraternity.
The next day, March 30, 1995, petitioner Yap lodged a complaint[2][7] with the Discipline Board
of DLSU charging private respondents with direct assault. Similar complaints[3][8] were also
filed by Dennis Pascual and Ericson Cano against Alvin Lee and private respondents Valdes and
Reverente. Thus, cases entitled De La Salle University and College of St. Benilde v. Alvin
Aguilar (AB-BSM/9152105), James Paul Bungubung (AB-PSM/9234403), Robert R. Valdes, Jr.
(BS-BS-APM/9235086), Alvin Lee (EDD/9462325), Richard Reverente (AB-MGT/9153837) and
Malvin A. Papio (AB-MGT/9251227) were docketed as Discipline Case No. 9495-3-25121.
The Director of the DLSU Discipline Office sent separate notices to private respondents
Aguilar, Bungubung and Valdes, Jr. and Reverente informing them of the complaints and
requiring them to answer. Private respondents filed their respective answers.[4][9]
Said notices issued by De La Salle Discipline Board uniformly stated as follows:
Please be informed that a joint and expanded Discipline Board had been constituted to hear
and deliberate the charge against you for violation of CHED Order No. 4 arising from the
written complaints of James Yap, Dennis C. Pascual, and Ericson Y. Cano.
You are directed to appear at the hearing of the Board scheduled on April 19, 1995 at 9:00
a.m. at the Bro. Connon Hall for you and your witnesses to give testimony and present
evidence in your behalf. You may be assisted by a lawyer when you give your testimony or
those of your witnesses.
On or before April 18, 1995, you are further directed to provide the Board, through the
Discipline Office, with a list of your witnesses as well as the sworn statement of their
proposed testimony.
Your failure to appear at the scheduled hearing or your failure to submit the list of
witnesses and the sworn statement of their proposed testimony will be considered a waiver
on your part to present evidence and as an admission of the principal act complained of.
During the proceedings before the Board on April 19 and 28, 1995, private respondents
interposed the common defense of alibi. No full-blown hearing was conducted nor the
students allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against them.
On May 3, 1995, the DLSU-CSB Joint Discipline Board issued a Resolution[5][18] finding private
respondents guilty. They were meted the supreme penalty of automatic
expulsion,[6][19]pursuant to CHED Order No. 4.[7][20] The dispositive part of the resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, considering all the foregoing, the Board finds respondents ALVIN AGUILAR (ABBSM/9152105), JAMES PAUL BUNGUBUNG (AB-PSM/9234403), ALVIN LEE (EDD/94623250) and

RICHARD V. REVERENTE (AB-MGT/9153837) guilty of having violated CHED Order No. 4 and
thereby orders their automatic expulsion.
In the case of respondent MALVIN A. PAPIO (AB-MGT/9251227), the Board acquits him of the
charge.
I SSUE
Were private respondents accorded due process of law because there was no full-blown
hearing nor were they allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against them?
H E L D:
Private respondents right to due process of law was not violated.
In administrative cases, such as investigations of students found violating school discipline,
[t]here are withal minimum standards which must be met before to satisfy the demands of
procedural due process and these are: that (1) the students must be informed in writing of
the nature and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer
the charges against them and with the assistance if counsel, if desired;
(3) they shall be
informed of the evidence against them; (4) they shall have the right to adduce evidence in
their own behalf; and (5) the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.[8][66]
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings but failed to do
so, he cannot complain of deprivation of due process.[9][67] Notice and hearing is the bulwark of
administrative due process, the right to which is among the primary rights that must be
respected even in administrative proceedings.[10][68] The essence of due process is simply an
opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to
explain ones side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.[11][69] So long as the party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or
defend her interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due process.[12][70]
A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, essential to due process
it is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their
respective sides of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair
decision can be based.[13][71] To be heard does not only mean presentation of testimonial
evidence in court one may also be heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be
heard through pleadings is accorded, there is no denial of due process.[14][72]
Private respondents were duly informed in writing of the charges against them by the DLSUCSB Joint Discipline Board through petitioner Sales. They were given the opportunity to
answer the charges against them as they, in fact, submitted their respective answers. They
were also informed of the evidence presented against them as they attended all the hearings

before the Board. Moreover, private respondents were given the right to adduce evidence on
their behalf and they did. Lastly, the Discipline Board considered all the pieces of evidence
submitted to it by all the parties before rendering its resolution in Discipline Case No. 9495-325121.
Private respondents cannot claim that they were denied due process when they were not
allowed to cross-examine the witnesses against them. This argument was already rejected
inGuzman v. National University[15][73] where this Court held that x x x the imposition of
disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process. And it bears stressing
that due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and
hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of justice. The
proceedings in student discipline cases may be summary; and cross examination is not, x x x
an essential part thereof.
GUZMAN VS. NU, 142 SCRA 706
GUZMAN VS. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
G.R. No. L-68288, July 11, 1986
FACTS:
Petitioners who are students of the National University were barred from enrolment. The
school claims that their scholastic standing is poor and that they have been involved in
activities that have disrupted classes and had conducted mass actions without the required
permits.
HELD:
a. It is apparent that despite the accusations of alleged violations hurled by the school
against the petitioners, the fact is that it had never conducted proceedings of any sort to
determine whether or not petitioners-students had indeed led or participated in activities
within the university premises, conducted without prior permit from school authorities, that
disturbed or disrupted classes therein.
Also apparent is the omission of respondents to cite any duly published rule of theirs by which
students may be expelled or refused re-enrollment for poor scholastic standing.
b. Under the Education Act of 1982, students have the right to freely choose their field of
study subject to existing curricula and to continue their course therein up to graduation,
EXCEPT in case of academic deficiency, or violation of disciplinary regulations.
The petitioner were denied of this right, and were being disciplined without due process, in
violation of the admonition in the Manual of Regulations for Private Schools that no penalty

shall be imposed upon any student except for cause as defined in *** (the) Manuel and/or in
the school rules and regulations as duly promulgated and only after due investigation shall
have been conducted. It has already been held in Berina vs. Philippine Maritime Institute,
117 SCRA 581, that it is illegal of a school to impose sanctions on students without conducting
due investigation.
c. Of course, all schools have the power to adopt and enforce its rules. In fact the
maintenance of good school discipline is a duty specifically enjoined on every private school.
The Manual of Regulations for Private Schools provides that:
* * The school rules governing discipline and the corresponding sanctions therefor must be
clearly specified and defined in writing and made known to the students and/or their parents
or guardians. Schools shall have the authority and prerogative to promulgate such rules and
regulations as they may deem necessary from time to time effective as of the date of their
promulgation unless otherwise specified.
d. The imposition of disciplinary sanctions requires observance of procedural due process.
Due process in disciplinary cases involving students:
a. need not entail proceedings and hearing similar to those prescribed for actions and
proceedings in court of justice;
b. the proceedings may be summary;
c. cross-examination is not an essential part thereof.
But the S.C. said that the following minimum standards must be met to satisfy the demands
of procedural due process:
1. the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation
against them;
2. they shall have the right to answer the charges against them, with the assistance of
counsel;
3. they shall be informed of the evidence against them;
4. they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf;
5. the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case.