Legal Action Against a University for Unjust Removal from the Graduation List in the Philippines

Introduction

In the Philippine educational system, graduation represents the culmination of years of academic effort and is a significant milestone for students. However, instances arise where universities remove students from the graduation list unjustly, often citing academic, disciplinary, or administrative grounds. Such actions can lead to profound emotional, financial, and professional harm to the affected student. This article explores the legal framework surrounding these cases, the rights of students, potential grounds for legal action, procedural remedies, and relevant jurisprudence in the Philippine context. It aims to provide a comprehensive overview of how aggrieved students can seek redress against higher education institutions (HEIs) for arbitrary or unlawful delisting from graduation.

Legal Basis for Students' Rights in Higher Education

The Philippine Constitution under Article XIV, Section 1, guarantees the right to quality education at all levels, emphasizing that education shall be accessible to all. This constitutional provision forms the bedrock for protecting students from arbitrary actions by educational institutions. Additionally, Republic Act No. 7722, or the Higher Education Act of 1994, established the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to oversee and regulate HEIs, ensuring standards of quality and fairness.

HEIs, particularly private ones, operate under the principle of academic freedom as enshrined in Article XIV, Section 5(2) of the Constitution, which allows institutions autonomy in determining who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. However, this freedom is not absolute and must be balanced against students' due process rights under Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which prohibits deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Graduation rights can be seen as a property interest, especially after fulfilling academic requirements, making unjust removal a potential violation.

The Manual of Regulations for Private Higher Education (MORPHE), issued by CHED via CMO No. 40, series of 2008, outlines policies on student admission, retention, and graduation. It mandates that HEIs adhere to fair procedures, including notice and hearing for any adverse actions against students. Public universities, governed by their charters (e.g., Republic Act No. 8292 for state universities and colleges), are similarly bound by administrative due process under the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292).

Common Grounds for Removal from Graduation List

Universities may remove a student from the graduation list for legitimate reasons, but these must be justified and procedurally sound. Typical grounds include:

Academic Deficiencies: Failure to meet minimum grade requirements, incomplete credits, or unresolved academic probation. For instance, a student with pending incomplete grades or failing marks in required courses may be delisted.
Disciplinary Violations: Infractions such as cheating, plagiarism, misconduct, or violations of the student code of conduct. Under CHED regulations, disciplinary actions must follow investigation and hearing processes.
Administrative Issues: Unsettled financial obligations, like unpaid tuition fees, or failure to submit required documents (e.g., clearance forms). However, HEIs cannot withhold diplomas or transcripts solely for non-academic debts without due notice, as per CHED Memorandum Order No. 9, series of 2013.
Health or Other Extenuating Circumstances: Rarely, medical or psychological issues might lead to delisting, but this requires medical board approval and student consent.

Unjust removal occurs when these actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or lack due process—such as delisting without prior notification, opportunity to appeal, or evidence-based justification. Discrimination based on gender, religion, or political beliefs could violate Republic Act No. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women) or other anti-discrimination laws.

Due Process Requirements in Student Delisting

Philippine jurisprudence emphasizes procedural due process in academic settings. In the landmark case of University of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 122196, 1998), the Supreme Court held that while academic decisions enjoy deference, students must be afforded notice and a chance to be heard, especially in non-academic matters. For graduation delisting, this means:

Notice: Written notification of the grounds for potential removal, with sufficient time to respond.
Hearing or Investigation: An impartial committee or board must review the case, allowing the student to present evidence and witnesses.
Appeal Mechanism: Internal appeals to the university president or board, followed by external recourse to CHED.

Failure to comply constitutes a denial of due process, rendering the action voidable. In Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong (G.R. No. 99327, 1993), the Court ruled that even private schools must observe fairness in disciplinary proceedings, akin to administrative agencies.

Available Legal Remedies for Aggrieved Students

Students unjustly removed from the graduation list have several avenues for redress, ranging from administrative to judicial actions. The choice depends on the nature of the violation and the desired outcome, such as reinstatement, damages, or diploma issuance.

1. Administrative Remedies

Internal University Procedures: Most HEIs have grievance committees or student affairs offices. Students should file a formal complaint within the prescribed period (often 15-30 days from notice of delisting).
CHED Intervention: Under RA 7722, CHED has supervisory authority. Students can file a complaint with the CHED Regional Office, which may investigate and order corrective action, such as reinstatement. CHED's Legal and Legislative Service handles disputes, and resolutions are appealable to the CHED en banc.
For Public Institutions: Complaints may also go to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) if involving state employees, or the Office of the Ombudsman for graft-related issues.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies is generally required before judicial action, as per the doctrine in Vivo v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (G.R. No. 187854, 2013).

2. Judicial Remedies

If administrative channels fail, students can resort to courts:

Petition for Mandamus: Under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, a writ of mandamus compels the university to perform a ministerial duty, such as including the student in the graduation list if all requirements are met. This is appropriate when the removal is capricious, as in Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology (G.R. No. 156109, 2004), where the Court ordered diploma issuance.
Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO): To prevent irreparable harm, such as missing the graduation ceremony, a student can seek a TRO from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) under Rule 58. This halts the delisting pending resolution.
Damages: Civil action for moral, actual, or exemplary damages under Articles 19-21 and 32 of the Civil Code, if the removal was done with bad faith or negligence. In De La Salle University v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127980, 2007), the Court awarded damages for wrongful expulsion.
Certiorari or Prohibition: To annul the university's decision if it constitutes grave abuse of discretion, filed with the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court under Rule 65.

Jurisdiction typically lies with the RTC where the university is located, unless involving pure questions of law, which may go directly to higher courts. Prescription periods apply: one year for quasi-delicts under Article 1146 of the Civil Code.

Key Jurisprudence and Precedents

Philippine courts have consistently protected student rights in similar cases:

Licup v. University of San Carlos (G.R. No. L-46589, 1980): The Supreme Court upheld due process in academic dismissals, stressing that universities cannot act arbitrarily.
Villar v. Technological Institute of the Philippines (G.R. No. 135928, 2001): Affirmed that financial obligations cannot justify withholding graduation if not communicated properly.
Saint Mary's University v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 147232, 2005): Ruled that delisting for disciplinary reasons requires substantial evidence and fair hearing.

These cases illustrate a judicial trend favoring students when institutions overstep, balancing academic freedom with constitutional rights.

Challenges and Practical Considerations

Pursuing legal action can be daunting due to costs, time, and power imbalances. Students should gather evidence like transcripts, correspondence, and witness statements early. Legal aid from organizations like the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or university legal clinics may be available. Alternative dispute resolution, such as mediation through CHED, can offer quicker resolutions.

In recent years, with the rise of online learning post-COVID-19 (under RA 11469 and CHED advisories), issues like technical glitches in grade submission have led to more delisting disputes, emphasizing the need for updated policies.

Conclusion

Unjust removal from a university's graduation list in the Philippines violates fundamental rights and can be challenged through a robust legal framework emphasizing due process and fairness. By understanding their rights under the Constitution, relevant laws, and jurisprudence, students can effectively seek reinstatement, damages, or other remedies. Educational institutions must uphold transparency to avoid litigation, fostering an environment where academic achievements are duly recognized. Aggrieved students are encouraged to consult legal professionals promptly to navigate these complex proceedings.