CUDIA VS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY

751 SCRA 469 (2015)

Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa
Class of 2014. On November 14, 2013, Cudia’s class had a lesson examination in their Operations
Research (OR) subject the schedule of which was from 1:30pm to 3pm.
However, after he submitted his exam paper, Cudia made a query to their OR teacher. Said
teacher, then asked Cudia to wait for her. Cudia complied and as a result, he was late for his next
class (English). Later, the English teacher reported Cudia for being late.In his explanation, Cudia
averred that he was late because his OR class was dismissed a bit late. The tactical officer (TO)
tasked to look upon the matter concluded that Cudia lied when he said that their OR class was
dismissed late because the OR teacher said she never dismissed her class late. Thus, Cudia was
meted with demerits and touring hours because of said infraction.Cudia did not agree with the
penalty and is Not content with the explanation of the TO, Cudia said he will be appealing the
penalty he incurred to the senior tactical officer (STO). The TO then asked Cudia to write his
appeal.In his appeal, Cudia stated that his being late was out of his control because his OR class
was dismissed at 3pm while his English class started at 3pm alsoLater, the TO reported Cudia to
the PMA’s Honor Committee (HC) for allegedly violating the Honor Code. Allegedly, Cudia lied
in his written appeal when he said his class was dismissed late hence, as a result, he was late for
his next class.

ISSUES:
1. whether or not the PMA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Cudia in
utter d i s r e g a r d o f h i s r i g h t t o d u e p r o c e s s a n d i n h o l d i n g t h a t h e v i o l a t e d
t h e h o n o r C o d e through lying .

HELD:
No" the determination of whether the PMA cadet has rights to due
p r o c e s s , e d u c a t i o n , and property should be placed in the context of the honor Code" All
the administrative r e m e d i e s w e r e e x h a u s t e d . "
A s t u d e n t o f a m i l i t a r y a c a d e m y m u s t b e p r e p a r e d t o subordinate his
private interest for the proper functioning of the institutionthe pMA may impose
disciplinary measures and punishments as it deems fit and consistent ,in the peculiar needs of
the institution. PMA has regulatory authority to administratively dismiss erring cadets. PMA has a right to
invoke academic freedom in the enforcement of the internal rules and regulations"
CUDIA VS SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY
751 SCRA 469 (2015)

Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa Class of
2014. On November 14, 2013, Cudia’s class had a lesson examination in their Operations Research (OR)
subject the schedule of which was from 1:30pm to 3pm.
However, after he submitted his exam paper, Cudia made a query to their OR teacher. Said
teacher, then asked Cudia to wait for her. Cudia complied and as a result, he was late for his next class
(English). Later, the English teacher reported Cudia for being late.In his explanation, Cudia averred that
he was late because his OR class was dismissed a bit late. The tactical officer (TO) tasked to look upon the
matter concluded that Cudia lied when he said that their OR class was dismissed late because the OR
teacher said she never dismissed her class late. Thus, Cudia was meted with demerits and touring hours
because of said infraction.Cudia did not agree with the penalty and is Not content with the explanation
of the TO, Cudia said he will be appealing the penalty he incurred to the senior tactical officer (STO). The
TO then asked Cudia to write his appeal.In his appeal, Cudia stated that his being late was out of his control
because his OR class was dismissed at 3pm while his English class started at 3pm alsoLater, the TO
reported Cudia to the PMA’s Honor Committee (HC) for allegedly violating the Honor Code. Allegedly,
Cudia lied in his written appeal when he said his class was dismissed late hence, as a result, he was late
for his next class.

ISSUES:
1. whether or not the PMA committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Cudia in
utter d i s r e g a r d o f h i s r i g h t t o d u e p r o c e s s a n d i n h o l d i n g t h a t h e v i o l a t e d
t h e h o n o r C o d e through lying .

HELD:
No" the determination of whether the PMA cadet has rights to due
p r o c e s s , e d u c a t i o n , and property should be placed in the context of the honor Code"
All the administrative r e m e d i e s w e r e e x h a u s t e d . "
A s t u d e n t o f a m i l i t a r y a c a d e m y m u s t b e p r e p a r e d t o subordinate his
private interest for the proper functioning of the institutionthe pMA may impose
disciplinary measures and punishments as it deems fit and consistent ,in the peculiar needs
of the institution. PMA has regulatory authority to administratively dismiss erring cadets. PMA has a right to
invoke academic freedom in the enforcement of the internal rules and regulations"

GO VS COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN

683 SCRA 358

Facts;
the head of Letran’s auxiliary Services department, received an information that certain fraternities were
recruiting new members among the Letran’s high school students. The school conducted medical
examinations on the students involved the school physician reported that 6 students bore injuries on the
posterior portions or their thighs, Four students admitted that they were neophytes of the Tau Gamma
Fraternity and were present in a hazing rite held in Tondo, manila and identified the senior members of
the fraternity present at their hazing. These included Kim Go, a fourth year highschool student. the
school’s security officer prepared an incident report that the Tau Gamma Fraternity has been recruiting
members from Letran’s high school department. He had spoken to one of the neophytes and obtain a list
of members of the fraternity currently enrolled at the high school department. Kim’s name was also in
the list. kim’s mother was informed . Kim responded a written statement and denied that he was a
fraternity member.the respondents found that twenty nine of their students, including Kim, were
fraternity members. The respondents found substantial basis in the neophytes statements that Kim was
a senior fraternity member. Based on their disciplinary rules, the father Prefect for Discipline
recommended for the dismissal of the fraternity members from the highschool department rolls. On
January 2002, the petitioners filed a complaint for damages before the RTC of Caloocan City claiming that
the repsondents had unlawfully dismissed Kim. They refused to accept that Kim was a fraternity member.
They likewise insisted that due process has not been observed.

ISSUE:
Whether or not repsondent’s had unlawfully dismissed Kim from the high School department.

RULING:
No.We see no merit in this argument as the petitioners apparently hew to an erroneous view of
administrative due process. Jurisprudence has clarified that administrative due process cannot be fully
equated with due process in the strict judicial sense. The very nature of due process negates the any
concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation. Thus we are hard
pressed to believe that Kim’s denial of his fraternity membership before formal notice was given worked
against his interest in the disciplinary case. The essence of due process, it bears repeating is simply the
opportunity to be heard. And Kim had been heard. His written explanation was received, indeed even
solicited by the respondents. Thus, he cannot claim that he was denied the right to adduce evidence in
his behalf.
In Licup v. San Carlos University, the Court held that when a student commits a serious breach of
discipline or fails to maintain the required academic standard, he forfeits his contractual right, and the
court should not review the discretion of university authorities.

G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015

FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA, v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL,
FACTS:
The petitioner was appointed on September 18, 2012 as the Presiding Judge of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, which is a first-level court. On September 27, 2013, he applied for the vacant position
of Presiding Judge in three Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) In a letter2 dated December 18, 2013, JBC's Office
of Recruitment, Selection and Nomination, informed the petitioner that he was not included in the list of
candidates for the said stations. On the same date, the petitioner sent a letter, through electronic mail,
seeking reconsideration of his non-inclusion in the list of considered applicants. The petitioner was
informed by the JBC Executive Officer, through a letter3 dated February 3, 2014, that his protest and
reconsideration was duly noted by the JBC en banc. However, its decision not to include his name in the
list of applicants was upheld due to the JBC's long-standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to
second-level courts to, among others, incumbent judges who have served in their current position for at
least five years, and since the petitioner has been a judge only for more than a year, he was excluded from
the list. This caused the petitioner to take recourse to this Court

ISSUE:
the JBC's five-year requirement violates the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution
HELD:
he assailed JBC policy requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can qualify
as applicants to second-level courts should have been published. As a general rule, publication is
indispensable in order that all statutes, including administrative rules that are intended to enforce or
implement existing laws, attain binding force and effect. There are, however, several exceptions to the
requirement of publication, such as interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature,
however the present issue does not fall on those exceptions.Nonetheless, the JBC's failure to publish the
assailed policy has not prejudiced the petitioner's private interest. At the risk of being repetitive, the
petitioner has no legal right to be included in the list of nominees for judicial vacancies since the
possession of the constitutional and statutory qualifications for appointment to the Judiciary may not be
used to legally demand that one's name be included in the list of candidates for a judicial vacancy. One's
inclusion in the shortlist is strictly within the discretion of the JBC