SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 01/10/2017, 7(59 PM

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Magtibay vs. Garcia
*
No. L-28971. January 28, 1983.

ARLEO E. MAGTIBAY, appellant, vs. Lt. Col. SANTIAGO

GARCIA and Cadet Colonel MARCELO JAVIER,
respondents.

Civil Law; Contracts; Schools; Contractual obligation of a

school to afford its students an opportunity to complete the course;
Forfeiture by student of his contractual right when he commits a
serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the required
academic standard.·True, an institution of learning has a
contractual obligation to afford its students a fair opportunity to
complete the course they seek to pursue. However, 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.
Same; Same; Same; Mandamus; Rule that a writ of mandamus
will not issue to review exercise of discretion of a public officer;
Reason.·This Court has consistently adhered to the rule that a
writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of
discretion of a public officer where the law imposes upon said public
officer the right and duty to exercise judgment in reference to any
matter in which he is required to act. It is his judgment that is to be
exercised and not that of the court.

____________

* SECOND DIVISION.

371

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ed7e08c953dd9f5d9003600fb002c009e/p/ANY954/?username=Guest Page 1 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 01/10/2017, 7(59 PM

VOL. 120, JANUARY 28, 1983 371

Magtibay vs. Garcia

APPEAL from the order of the Court of First Instance of

Rizal.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Leodegario I. Magtibay for appellant.
The Solicitor General for respondent.

ESCOLIN, J.:

Appeal from the order of the Court of First Instance of

Rizal dismissing the appellantÊs petition for mandamus and
quo warranto.
The issue posed for determination is whether the courts
may review the exercise of discretion of a public officer on
matters in which it is his duty to act. Appellant contends
that the lower court erred in refusing to review the
actuations of Lt. Col. Santiago Q. Garcia, commandant of
the University of the Philippines ROTC as to matters
affecting the regulation and supervision of the U.P. ROTC
Corps of Cadets.
On March 12, 1966, Lt. Col. Santiago Q. Garcia, then
Commander of the U.P. ROTC Cadet Corps, issued General
Orders No. 23 relieving Arleo E. Magtibay of the rank of
cadet colonel and as battalion commander of the 1st BCT of
the U.P. Cadet Corps, and designating in his stead Cadet
Col. Marcelo Javier. In the same order, Magtibay was
excluded from the roll of the graduating class of the ROTC
Advance Course for having flunked the subject MS-42, a
subject necessary for the completion of the Advance Course.
On March 23, 1966, Magtibay filed with the President of
the University of the Philippines an administrative case
against Lt. Col. Garcia charging the latter with abuse of
discretion and seeking
1
his relief as commandant of the U.P.
ROTC Cadet Corps. The Honorable Carlos P. Romulo, then
President of the U.P., appointed a committee to investigate
the complaint and „to review the case of Mr. Magtibay and
to evaluate his scholastic record, including his examination
papers, if any, in MS-42, and to make recommendations in
accordance with the

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ed7e08c953dd9f5d9003600fb002c009e/p/ANY954/?username=Guest Page 2 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 01/10/2017, 7(59 PM

____________

1 p. 12, rollo.

372

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Magtibay vs. Garcia

procedure described in paragraph 2, section 374 of the

Revised U.P. Code.‰ Said Committee, after due
investigation, submitted its report to the U.P. President,
stating, among other things, that

„Records show that Mr. Magtibay got the following grades in MS 42

for second semester 1965-1966:

Subject Proficiency ............................. 37.20%

Aptitude .............................................. 0
Attendance .......................................... 26.00%
Total .......................................... 63.20%

„Mr. Magtibay, due to various offenses to include major

infractions of regulations and/or instructions committed during the
semester, garnered a total of 140 demerits. Since 100 merits
awarded each cadet at the start of the semester if equivalent to
30%, Mr. MagtibayÊs exhausting its 100 merits accounts for his
getting „0‰ under Aptitude. Adding together the total percentage of
63 is way below the minimum passing grade of 70% hence his
2
failure in MS 42.

On the basis of said report, President Carlos P. Romulo of

the University of the Philippines issued a memorandum-
decision dismissing the complaint, „without prejudice to
reenrollment of the complainant in the same course (MS-
42), in accordance with existing regulations.‰
Apart from the administrative complaint adverted to,
appellant Magtibay instituted in the Court of First
Instance of Rizal a petition for mandamus and quo
warranto, with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction, against Lt. Col. Garcia and Marcelo Javier,
praying that Javier be relieved as battalion commander of

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ed7e08c953dd9f5d9003600fb002c009e/p/ANY954/?username=Guest Page 3 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 01/10/2017, 7(59 PM

the 1st BTC of the U.P. Cadet Corps; that he (Magtibay) be

reinstated to his former rank and command; and that he be
included in the roster of the U.P. ROTC Advance Course
graduating class.
Upon the filing of the petition, the lower court issued a
writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering
MagtibayÊs reinstatement to his former rank and command.
Pursuant to

______________

2 p. 23, rollo.

373

VOL. 120, JANUARY 28, 1983 373

Magtibay vs. Garcia

said writ, appellant was „reinstated commander of 1st BCT,

3
U.P. ROTC Unit, and Javier relieved of such command.‰
After joinder of issues, hearing was conducted, and
thereafter the lower court issued the questioned order
dismissing the petition and lifting the writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction. The Court rationalized the order of
dismissal, thus·

„x x x there seems to be merit in the contention that the remedy

sought and the body from which the remedy is being sought are not
the proper ones. For there does not seem to be any question that the
admission, regulation and supervision of ROTC Cadet Corps all
over the Philippines are vested in the Commanding General of the
Philippines who, in turn, is under the President of the Philippines.
Likewise, courts would not be the right branch of government to
look into the propriety or impropriety of a discharge or a dismissal
of a student from the Cadet Corps of the school in which he is
enrolled, for that would be interferring with purely internal matters
properly within the cognizance of the school authorities concerned
and that arm of the Army of Philippines which has to do with and is
in charge of the training of the youth in the ROTC.‰

Hence, this appeal.

We dismiss this appeal for being moot and academic.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ed7e08c953dd9f5d9003600fb002c009e/p/ANY954/?username=Guest Page 4 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 01/10/2017, 7(59 PM

The records disclose that during the pendency of this case

before the lower court, Lt. Col. Garcia had been relieved as
commandant of the U.P. ROTC Corps of Cadets and
assigned to another post, while Cadet Col. Javier had long
graduated from the U.P. Moreover, pursuant to the writ of
the preliminary mandatory injunction issued by the lower
court, appellant was reinstated to his former rank as
commander of the 1st BCT of the U.P. ROTC Cadet Corps,
which command he held up to the end of the school year
1965-66.
At any rate, appellantÊs prayer to compel Lt. Col. Garcia
to include him in the roster of graduates of the ROTC
Advance Course is absolutely bereft of any legal basis to
stand on. He was not allowed to graduate because he
flunked the subject MS-42, a required subject for the
completion of the ROTC Ad-

______________

3 General Orders No. 32 issued by Lt. Col. Garcia on April 4, 1966.

374

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Magtibay vs. Garcia

vance Course. That he flunked said subject is not disputed

by the appellant. True, an institution of learning has a
contractual obligation to afford its students a fair
opportunity to complete the course they seek to pursue.
However, 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 4
should not review the discretion of university authorities.
This Court has consistently adhered to the rule that a
writ of mandamus will not issue to control or review the
exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law
imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to
exercise judgment in reference to any matter in which he is
required to act. It is his5 judgment that is to be exercised
and not that of the court.
WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is hereby

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ed7e08c953dd9f5d9003600fb002c009e/p/ANY954/?username=Guest Page 5 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 01/10/2017, 7(59 PM

affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr.,

Guerrero, Abad Santos and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.

Notes.·A student who mauls a professor off-campus in

connection with his having receiving a failing grade may be
investigated by the school for disciplinary purposes.
(Angeles vs. Sison, 112 SCRA 26.)
The dismissal of the criminal case on complainantÊs
desistance is not a bar for the school to investigate a
student for disciplinary purposes. (Angeles vs. Sison, 112
SCRA 26.)
The responsibility of teachers and school officers under
Article 2180 of the new Civil Code is not limited to pupils
who are minors. (Palisoc vs. Brillantes, 41 SCRA 548.)

____________

4 Carr, et al. vs. St. John University, 231 N.Y.S. 2d 410 (1962).
5 Ng Gioc Liu vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 85 Phil. 842; Blanco vs.
Board of Medical Examiners, 46 Phil. 190; Frank & Co. vs. Clemente, 44
Phil. 30; Gomez vs. Ventura, 54 Phil. 726.

375

VOL. 120, JANUARY 28, 1983 375

Director of Lands vs. Gonzales

The Director of Private Schools is authorized to publish the

list of courses disapproved and the schools offering them.
(Yap vs. Carreon, 14 SCRA 100.)
Nothing in C.A. 256 enjoins the Director of Public
Schools to perform as a duty the act of adjusting the
salaries of public school principals. (Alzate vs. Aldana, 8
SCRA 219.)

··o0o··

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ed7e08c953dd9f5d9003600fb002c009e/p/ANY954/?username=Guest Page 6 of 7
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 120 01/10/2017, 7(59 PM

© Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015ed7e08c953dd9f5d9003600fb002c009e/p/ANY954/?username=Guest Page 7 of 7