UP Board of Regents v.

Court of Appeals

(G.R. No. 134625. Aug. 31, 1999)

Facts
The private respondents Arokaiswamy William Margaret Celine was enrolled
in the doctoral program in Anthropology of the University of the Philippines CSSP in
Diliman. She has already completed the units of course work required in her doctoral
program and her dissertation and was ready for the defense.
After going over her dissertation, Dr. Medina informed CSSP Dean Consuelo
Joaquin-Paz that there were portion of the dissertation that was lifted without proper
acknowledgement that would tantamount to plagiarism. Nonetheless, the private
respondent was allowed to defend her dissertation and 4 out of 5 panelists gave a
passing mark except Dr. Medina.
The University conducted a meeting to address the issues concerning her
dissertation and some of the panel expressed disapproval. consequently, the
respondent expressed her dismay over the CSSP administration and warned Dean
Paz against encouraging perfidious act against her. However Dean Paz requested
for the exclusion of the respondent’s name from the list of candidates for graduation.
However, the letter did not reach the Board of Regents on time, hence the
respondent graduated.
Dr. Medina formally charged the private respondent with plagiarism and
recommended that her doctorate degree be withdrawn.
The CSSP assembly unanimously approved the recommendation to withdraw
the private respondent’s doctorate degree.
The board of regents sent a letter to the private respondent indicating the
withdrawal of her doctorate degree as recommended by the University Council.
The respondent requested to meet with the board of regents or the university
president which was later denied by the later.
Thus, the private respondent filed a petition for mandamus with the prayer for
the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and damages, alleging that the
petitioners had unlawfully withdrawn her degree without justification and without
affording her procedural due process.
Issues
Whether or not the respondent Arokaiswamy William Margaret Celine was
deprived with her right to due process.

Holding
No. The respondent Arokaiswamy William Margaret Celine was heard several
times.

Rationale
Several committees were formed and meetings were held to investigate the
charge that the private respondent had committed plagiarism and she was given an
opportunity to be heard in her defense
In case at bar, several committees were formed has informed her in writing of
the charges against her and given opportunities to answer them, she was asked to
submit her explanation letter which she submitted. She was also given the
opportunity to meet the members of the Zafaralla committee to discuss her side on
the case.
On the other hand, the respondent was afforded with the opportunity to be
heard and explain her side but failed to refute the charges against her. Her only
claim that her responses were not considered by the regent before rendering its
decision, but this claim was not proven. The court argued the presumption of
regularity on the performance of duties will be observed in the absence of evidences
to counter it.