SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 227

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

G.R. No. 161172. December 13, 2004.*

NADINE ROSARIO M. MORALES, petitioner, vs. THE

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Appeals; Certiorari; When

there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the
conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.·There is
a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of
the probative value of evidence presented, the truth or falsehood of
facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct application
of law and jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand, there is
a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the
truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to
fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom
is correct is a question of law.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Technicalities; A deviation from its
rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its prime objective,
for after all, the dispensation of justice is the core reason for the
existence of courts.·We must bear in mind that procedural rules
are intended to ensure the proper administration of law and justice.
The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,
technical sense, for they are adopted to help secure, not override,
substantial justice. A deviation from its rigid enforcement may thus
be allowed to attain its prime objective, for after all, the
dispensation of justice is the core reason for the existence of courts.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Grounds; Grave Abuse of Discretion;
Absent any showing of grave abuse of discretion, the courts may not
disturb the UniversityÊs decision not to confer honors to petitioner.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 1 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

·As enunciated by this Court in the case of University of San

Carlos v. Court of Appeals, the discretion of schools of learning to
formulate rules and guidelines in the granting of honors for
purposes of graduation forms part of academic freedom. And such
discretion may not be disturbed much less controlled by the courts,
unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise. Therefore,
absent any show-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

228

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines

ing of grave abuse of discretion, the courts may not disturb the
UniversityÊs decision not to confer honors to petitioner. „Grave
abuse of discretion implies such capricious and whimsical exercise
of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, or in other
words, where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and it must be so
patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in
contemplation of law.‰
Same; Same; Same; Factual Findings; UP has been likened to
an administrative agency whose findings must be accorded respect
within its areas of competence.·In the case of University of the
Philippines v. Ayson, UP has been likened to an administrative
agency whose findings must be accorded respect within its areas of
competence. Well-settled is the principle that by reason of the
special knowledge and expertise of administrative agencies over
matters falling under their jurisdiction, they are in a better position
to pass judgment thereon; thus, their findings of fact in that regard
are generally accorded great respect, if not finality, by the courts.
Constitutional Law; Rights; Academic Freedom; Academic
freedom accords an institution of higher learning the right to decide

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 2 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them.·Sec. 5
(2), Article XIV of the Constitution provides that „[a]cademic
freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning.‰
Academic freedom accords an institution of higher learning the
right to decide for itself its aims and objectives and how best to
attain them. This constitutional provision is not to be construed in a
niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion. Certainly, the wide
sphere of autonomy given to universities in the exercise of academic
freedom extends to the right to confer academic honors. Thus,
exercise of academic freedom grants the University the exclusive
discretion to determine to whom among its graduates it shall confer
academic recognition, based on its established standards. And the
courts may not interfere with such exercise of discretion unless
there is a clear showing that the University has arbitrarily and
capriciously exercised its judgment.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

229

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 229

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

Carlos Roberto Z. Lopez and Norma Margarita B.

Patacsil for petitioner.

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:

„It is an accepted principle that schools of learning are given ample

discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in the granting of
honors for purposes of graduation. This is part of academic freedom.
Within the parameters of these rules, it is within the competence of
universities and colleges to determine who are entitled to the grant
of honors among the graduating students. Its discretion on this
academic matter may not be disturbed much less controlled by the
1
courts unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise.‰

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 3 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

The Case

Before Us
2
is a Petition for Review
3
on Certiorari of the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 284 November 2003,
reversing the 05 September 2002 Order of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 87.
The pivotal issue from which this case arose is the
interpretation and application of Article 410 of the
University of the Philippines (UP) Code which provides:

ART. 410. Students who complete their courses with the following
absolute minimum weighted average grade shall be graduated with
honors:
Summa Cum Laude .................. 1.20
Magna Cum Laude.................... 1.45
Cum Laude ................................ 1.75

_______________

1 University of San Carlos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-79237, 18

October 1988, 166 SCRA 570, 574.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico, with Associate
Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente,
concurring; Rollo, pp. 83-95.
3 CA-G.R. SP No. 76008, entitled „Nadine Rosario M. Morales v. The
Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines.‰
4 Civil Case No. Q-01-43672; Rollo, pp. 491-500.

230

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

Provided, that all the grades in all subjects prescribed in the

curriculum, as well as subjects that qualify as electives, shall be
included in the computation of the weighted average grade;
provided further that in cases where the electives taken are more
than those required in the program, the following procedure will be
used in selecting the electives to be included in the computation of
the weighted average grade:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 4 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

(I) For students who did not shift programs, consider the
required number of electives in chronological order.
(II) For students who shifted from one program to another, the
electives to be considered shall be selected according to the
following order of priority:

(1) Electives taken in the program where the student is

graduating will be selected in chronological order.
(2) Electives taken in the previous program and acceptable as
electives in the second program will be selected in
chronological order.
(3) Prescribed courses taken in the previous program, but
qualify as electives in the second program will be selected in
5
chronological order.

The Facts

In the school year 1997-1998, petitioner Nadine Rosario M.

Morales transferred from the UP Manila campus, where
she was taking up Speech Pathology, to UP Diliman and
enrolled in the European Languages undergraduate
program under the College of Arts and Letters. Said
program has three curricula, namely, Plan A, Plan B, and
Plan C. Upon the petitionerÊs transfer, she chose the Plan A
curriculum and elected French as her major and German
as her minor. Under the Plan A curriculum, the student is
required to complete 141 units worth of subjects in the
University, 27 of which should be electives in his or her
minor field of study.

_______________

5 As amended at the 958th meeting of the Board of Regents of UP on

24 February 1983; Rollo, pp. 571-572.

231

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 231

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 5 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

During the first semester of school year 1997-1998, the

petitioner enrolled in the subjects German 10 and German
11 where she obtained the grades of 1.0 in both subjects. At
the start of the second semester, however, the petitioner
changed her language minor from German to Spanish,
while maintaining French as her major.
By the end of the first semester of school year 1999-
2000, the petitioner was included in the list of candidates
for graduation „with probable honors‰ issued by the College
of Arts and Letters of UP Diliman. The inclusion of the
petitioner in the said list was based on the computation
made by the College of Arts and Letters of the petitionerÊs
General Weighted Average (GWA) inclusive of her grades of
1.0 in German 10 and 11. According to the collegeÊs
computation, the petitioner had a GWA of 1.725, clearly
6
above the minimum weighted7 average grade for
conferment of cum laude honors. Petitioner obtained an
average of 1.708 for her remaining subjects in her final
semester in the University, bringing her GWA to 1.729,
which is definitely higher than the 1.75 average grade
required for cum laude honors.
During the assessment for graduation though, the
petitioner was not granted cum laude honors because her
grades of 1.0 in the subjects German 10 and 11, which she
took when her minor was still German, were excluded in
the computation of her GWA, thus bringing her GWA to
1.760, which is lower than the minimum weighted average
grade required for the conferment of cum laude honors.
Prof. Edwin Thaddeus L. Bautista, Chair of the
Department of European Languages, explained that a
student following the Plan A curriculum is required to
major in one

_______________

6 Under Article 410 of the UP Code, the absolute minimum weighted

average grade for cum laude honors is 1.75.
7 Said computation is, however, erroneous as the petitionerÊs actual
GWA, including her German 10 and 11 grades, was 1.7325, which is
nonetheless above the prescribed minimum weighted average grade;
Rollo, p. 118.

232

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 6 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

European language other than Spanish, and minor in

another or any of the disciplines allowed under the
curriculum. In petitionerÊs case, her major is French and
her minor is Spanish, thus, German does not fit into her
curriculum. Furthermore, the Plan A curriculum does not
allow for free electives. Electives under said curriculum
must be major language electives, which, in the case of
petitioner, must have been taken from French courses in
either literature or translation. German 10 and 11, being
basic language courses, do not fall under electives as
contemplated in the Plan A curriculum.
Maintaining that the collegeÊs manner of computing her
grades was erroneous, the petitioner wrote Dr. Ofelia
Silapan, College Secretary of the College of Arts and
Letters, on 06 April 2000, requesting that her German
language subjects (i.e., German 10 and 11) be included in
the computation of her GWA, it appearing that such had
been done in connection with the inclusion of her name in
the list of those graduating „with probable honors.‰ Said
letter was followed-up by another letter signed by
petitionerÊs father, and addressed to Dr. Elena L. Samonte,
University Registrar, on 08 April 2000, explaining why
petitionerÊs German 10 and 11 grades should be included in
the computation of her GWA.
These letters were taken up on a no-name basis during
the 68th meeting of the University Council on 10 April
2000 upon the University RegistrarÊs endorsement. After
deliberating on the matter, the University Council, by a
vote of 207 in favor and 4 against, affirmed the
recommendation of the European Languages Department
and the College of Arts and Letters of not awarding the
cum laude honors to the petitioner.
In view of the adverse decision of the University
Council, the petitioner, together with her parents, wrote
UP President Francisco A. Nemenzo, on 18 April 2000,
asking that the merits of petitionerÊs case be reviewed and,
if deemed appropriate, the same be elevated to the UP
Board of Regents in order to correct the error in the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 7 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

computation of the petitionerÊs GWA.

233

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 233

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

At the 1142nd meeting of the Board of Regents held on 26

May 2000, petitionerÊs appeal was thus discussed, and it
was resolved that said appeal be returned to the University
Council for further consideration, with full disclosure of
who is involved in the matter.
PetitionerÊs case was then again considered by the
University Council during its 69th meeting held on 21 June
2000. After much deliberation, the University Council, by a
vote of 99 for, 12 against, and 6 abstentions, resolved to
reaffirm its earlier decision of 10 April 2000 denying the
award of cum laude honors to petitioner.
Upon the denial of the appeal, petitionerÊs parents, on
petitionerÊs behalf and for themselves, submitted a Notice
of Appeal dated 27 June 2000 to the Board of Regents
through President Nemenzo and, subsequently, an Appeal
Memorandum and Supplemental Memorandum dated 24
and 30 August 2000, respectively. The appeal was taken up
during the 1144th meeting of the Board of Regents held on
31 August 2000. After a thorough discussion on the proper
interpretation and application of Article 410 of the UP
Code, the Board of Regents, by a vote of 9 against 2, elected
to deny the appeal. PetitionerÊs parents thereafter filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, but the same was also denied.
Assailing the decision of the UP Board of Regents as
erroneous, petitioner, on 21 March 2001, brought a petition
for certiorari and mandamus before the RTC, which
resolved the case in her favor under Order of 05 September
2002. According to the said Order, the UP Board of Regents
gravely abused its discretion in the improper application of
its academic discretion in interpreting Article 410 of the
UP Code. The lower court, hence, required the respondent
UP Board of Regents to re-compute petitionerÊs grades by
including her grades in German 10 and 11 and to confer
upon petitioner cum laude honors. The respondent filed a

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 8 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

Motion for Reconsideration on 07 October 2002, which was

subsequently denied by the lower court. Upon said denial,
the respondent

234

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

appealed the RTCÊs Order to the Court of Appeals by filing

a Notice of Appeal dated 14 February 2003.
The petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss the appeal on 24
April 2003, advancing that the Court of Appeals had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the appeal, inasmuch as it
raised only questions of law. Said argument was reiterated
in petitionerÊs Memorandum, together with the position
that the lower court was correct to find that respondent
had gravely abused its discretion in arbitrarily excluding
petitionerÊs grades in German 10 and 11 from the
computation of her GWA.
The respondent, for its part, contended that the lower
court failed to take into consideration the interpretation of
the pertinent provision of the UP Code arrived at by the
University Council during its deliberations. It instead,
substituted its own interpretation in violation of the
academic freedom of UP as an institution of higher
learning.
Noting the identity of the arguments raised by
petitioner in both her Motion to Dismiss and
Memorandum, the Court of Appeals, in a resolution,
deemed the case submitted for decision. In deciding the
appeal, the appellate court initially determined whether
only questions of law are involved in the case. Eventually,
the appellate court declared that an analysis of the facts of
the case is indispensable. According to the Court of
Appeals:

To resolve these issues, an incursion or investigation of the facts

attending the case of the petitioner-appellee is indispensable. The
Court must sift through the contrasting evidence submitted to
determine the specific situation of appelleeÊs academic standing,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 9 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

and the chronology of appelleeÊs scholastic progress, her grades and

scholastic average, as well as what particular rules were used or
misused by the Respondent Board, and by the lower court, in
coming up with its respective decisions. The Court is called upon to
make a calibration and resolution of all these elements, and to
determine the existence and relevancy [sic] of specific surrounding
circumstances, its relation to each other and to the whole and the
probabilities of the situation.

235

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 235

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

This is not a simple matter of determining what the [sic] law is

applicable on a given or specific set of facts. Indeed, the facts itself
[sic] must be determined and reviewed, before a legal adjudication
could be made.
To be sure, questions of law are attendant in the instant appeal,
but to resolve the same, a review and determination of [the] facts,
based on evidence and matters on record, is necessary before such
issues could be resolved. The Court, therefore, as a legal reviewer of
issues of fact and law, is competent, and legally empowered, to take
8
cognizance of and resolve the instant appeal.

Having resolved the issue of jurisdiction, the Court of

Appeals went on to determine whether the lower court
erred in not finding that academic freedom should apply in
the instant case. According to the appellate court, the
RTCÊs Order involved an intrusion on the discretion and
authority of the UP Board of Regents in the matter of
whether or not to confer academic honors upon the
petitioner. The Court of Appeals stated that the lower court
violated UPÊs constitutionally protected right to academic
freedom when it substituted its own interpretation of the
internal rules and regulations of the University for that of
the UP Board of Regents, and applied the same to the
petitionerÊs case. The appellate court further made a
determination that respondent is not guilty of grave abuse
of discretion in deciding not to confer academic honors upon
the petitioner, inasmuch as respondent proceeded fairly in

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 10 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

reaching its decision, giving the petitioner and her parents

ample opportunity to present their case. Accordingly, on 28
November 2003, the Court of Appeals issued a decision
granting the UP Board of RegentsÊ appeal:

The Order, dated September 5, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of

Quezon City, Branch 87 is hereby SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof,
judgment is hereby rendered DISMISSING the petition for
certiorari and mandamus filed by petitioner-appellee Nadine
9
Rosario M. Morales.

_______________

8 Rollo, pp. 88-89.

9 Rollo, p. 94.

236

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

Claiming that the Court of Appeals committed grave and

reversible errors in issuing its 28 November 2003 decision,
petitioner filed before this Court a Petition for Review
10
on
Certiorari, raising the following assignment of errors:

The Court of Appeals had no jurisdiction over respondentÊs appeal

of the RTCÊs Order (the CA Appeal) because the essential facts here
were never in dispute, this case involves purely questions of law.

II

The RTC correctly required respondent to confer cum laude

honors on petitioner because respondent gravely abused its
discretion in refusing to comply with Article 410 of the UP Code
(which respondent itself issued) and in arbitrarily excluding
petitionerÊs grades in German 10 and 11 from the computation of
her GWA. The Court of Appeals therefore gravely erred in reversing
the RTCÊs Order.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 11 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

According to the petitioner, it was erroneous for the

appellate court to assume jurisdiction over respondentÊs
appeal of the RTC Order as said appeal involved purely
questions of law, and that respondents should have
challenged said Order directly with the Supreme Court
through a Petition for Review on Certiorari and not before
the Court of Appeals through a Notice of Appeal. The
petitioner further argues that it was error for the Court of
Appeals to rule that respondentÊs refusal to interpret and
apply Article 410 of the UP Code in order to confer cum
laude honors to petitioner did not constitute grave abuse of
discretion. Lastly, petitioner advances that the appellate
court mischaracterized this case as one involving academic
freedom, thus condoning respondentÊs alleged injustice to
petitioner.

_______________

10 Rollo, p. 37.

237

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 237

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

Ruling of the Court

First, we shall endeavor to dispose of the issue of

jurisdiction.
Petitioner submits that this case involves only the
interpretation of a rule (i.e., Article 410 of the UP Code)
and the determination of whether the subjects German 10
and 11 can be considered as „qualified electives‰ under the
assailed rule in relation to petitionerÊs situation. According
to petitioner, the facts of the case have never been in
dispute. Both petitioner and respondent have presented the
same pieces of evidence, albeit of course, their respective
interpretations and positions on the legal effects of their
common evidence are different. Petitioner also points out

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 12 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

that the total absence of questions of fact is precisely the

reason why the RTC did not require, and the parties
themselves did not demand, an evidentiary hearing for the
case before the lower court.
We agree with petitioner that respondentÊs appeal to the
appellate court raises only questions of law. There is a
question of law when the issue does not call for an
examination of the probative value of evidence presented,
the truth or falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt
concerns the correct
11
application of law and jurisprudence
on the matter. On the other hand, there is a question of
fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to the truth or
falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to
fact, the question of whether or not the 12
conclusion drawn
therefrom is correct is a question of law.
Contrary to what the Court of Appeals postulates, the
resolution of the issues presented by respondent UP Board
of

_______________

11 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

111324, 5 July 1996, 258 SCRA 186, citing Vda. de Arroyo v. El Beaterio
del Santissimo Rosario de Molo, G.R. No. L-22005, 03 May 1968, 23
SCRA 525.
12 Far East Marble (Philippines), Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
94093, 10 August 1993, 225 SCRA 249.

238

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

Regents does not necessitate an incursion of the facts

attending the case. Whether the lower court erred in
finding that respondent gravely abused its discretion in
interpreting and applying the provisions of the UP Code on
the case of petitioner is a question of law, the
determination of which calls for the analysis of the proper
application of law and jurisprudence. While the Court of
Appeals is correct in saying that in order to resolve the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 13 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

issues raised by the parties, the court must consider all the
facts and evidence presented in the case, it does not,
however, rule on the truth or falsity of such facts, based on
the evidence and matters on record. It must be stressed
that the facts were admitted by both parties. Therefore,
any conclusion based on these facts would not involve a
calibration of the probative value of such pieces of evidence,
but would be limited to an inquiry of whether the law was
properly applied given the state of facts of the case.
It is thus evident that the controversy centered on, and
the doubt arose with respect to, the correct interpretation
and application of Rule 410 of the UP Code in relation to
petitionerÊs situation and not as to any fact or evidence
advanced by the parties. And since the appeal brought by
respondent UP Board of Regents before the Court of
Appeals raises only questions of law, the proper mode of 13
appeal is by way of a petition for certiorari under Rule 45.
Therefore, the appellate court did not have jurisdiction to
take cognizance of and to resolve respondentÊs appeal.
The above conclusion, however, will not deter this Court
from proceeding with the judicial determination of the
basic legal issues herein. We must bear in mind that
procedural rules are intended to ensure the proper
administration of law and justice. The rules of procedure
ought not to be applied in

_______________

13 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41, Sec. 2, par. (c) provides: „Sec. 2.
Modes of appeal. . . (c) Appeal by certiorari.·In all cases where only
questions of law are raised or involved, the appeal shall be to the
Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari in accordance with
Rule 45.‰

239

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 239

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

a very rigid, technical sense, for they are

14
adopted to help
secure, not override, substantial justice. A deviation from

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 14 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

its rigid enforcement may thus be allowed to attain its

prime objective, for after all, the dispensation
15
of justice is
the core reason for the existence of courts. Noting that
this case involves the exercise of a fundamental right·
academic freedom no less·of the State University, and
that the petitioner has, in any event, raised before us the
legal question of whether the RTC correctly required
respondent to confer cum laude honors on the petitioner
because of respondentÊs alleged grave abuse of discretion,
for pragmatic reasons and consideration of justice and
equity, the Court must go on to resolve the second
assignment of error.
As enunciated by this Court16in the case of University of
San Carlos v. Court of Appeals, the discretion of schools of
learning to formulate rules and guidelines in the granting
of honors for purposes of graduation forms part of academic
freedom. And such discretion may not be disturbed much
less controlled by the courts, unless there is grave abuse of
discretion in its exercise. Therefore, absent any showing of
grave abuse of discretion, the courts may not disturb the
UniversityÊs decision not to confer honors to petitioner.
„Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction, or in other words, where the power is exercised
in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or
personal hostility, and it must be so patent and gross as to
amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal
to

_______________

14 A-One Feeds, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-35560, 30 October

1980, 100 SCRA 590, 594.
15 Santiago Tamayo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147070, 17 February
2004, 423 SCRA 175.
16 Supra, note 1.

240

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 15 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

perform17 the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation

of law.‰
A judicious review of the records will show that the
respondent proceeded fairly in evaluating petitionerÊs
situation, giving her and her parents ample opportunity to
present their side on different occasions and before
different fora, i.e., the Department of European Languages,
the College of Arts and Letters, the University Council and
finally, the Board of Regents. Contrary to the trial courtÊs
findings, there is no showing that respondent acted
arbitrarily or capriciously in interpreting Article 410 of the
UP Code and consequently not conferring academic honors
on petitioner.
For clarity, Article 410 of the UP Code is again quoted
hereunder:

ART. 410. Students who complete their courses with the following
absolute minimum weighted average grade shall be graduated with
honors:
Summa Cum Laude .................. 1.20
Magna Cum Laude ................... 1.45
Cum Laude ................................ 1.75
Provided, that all the grades in all subjects prescribed in the
curriculum, as well as subjects that qualify as electives, shall be
included in the computation of the weighted average grade;
provided further that in cases where the electives taken are more
than those required in the program, the following procedure will be
used in selecting the electives to be included in the computation of
the weighted average grade:

(I) For students who did not shift programs, consider the
required number of electives in chronological order.
(II) For students who shifted from one program to another, the
electives to be considered shall be selected according to the
following order of priority:

_______________

17 Cuison v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128540, 15 April 1998, 289

SCRA 159.

241

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 16 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 241

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

(1) Electives taken in the program where the student is

graduating will be selected in chronological order.
(2) Electives taken in the previous program and
acceptable as electives in the second program will
be selected in chronological order.
(3) Prescribed courses taken in the previous program,
but qualify as electives in the second
18
program will
be selected in chronological order.

As can be seen from the minutes of the meetings of the

University Council and the Board of Regents, petitionerÊs
case was subjected to an exhaustive and judicious
deliberation. During the 68th Meeting of the University
Council, where petitionerÊs case was first submitted to the
body for discussion on a no-name basis, a member raised
the issue of whether German 10 and 11 could be counted as
electives in the program of petitioner, to which the
University Registrar replied that the studentÊs program is
European Languages, major in French, minor in Spanish
under which German 10 and 11 are not required in the
checklist; neither can these subjects be considered electives
as said electives should be non-language electives. Since
the student chose Spanish as her 19
minor language, German
10 and 11 are excess subjects. Another member argued
that if the student had satisfied all the requirements in the
curriculum, then German 10 and 11 should be included in
the computation
20
of the GWA since the student had good
grades. To this, Dean Josefina Agravante of the College of
Arts and Letters replied that while they empathize with
the student and her parents, this same rule had been
applied in the past, and if the student would be allowed to
graduate with honors, she (Dean Agravante) will be forced
to

_______________

18 As amended at the 958th meeting of the Board of Regents of UP on

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 17 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

24 February 1983; Rollo, pp. 571-572.

19 Rollo, p. 187.
20 Ibid.

242

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

recommend the same for the other students 21

who were
denied the same request in the past. At the 1142nd
Meeting of the Board of Regents, both positions of the
petitioner and the University Council on the proper
interpretation of Article 410 of the UP Code were presented
before the Board and an agreement was reached among the
members to return petitionerÊs appeal to the University
Council for further consideration, with full disclosure of
who is involved in the matter.
Upon the appealÊs return to the University Council, the
issue of whether the University rule allows for excess
electives more than22
those required by the program was
raised. Prof. Cao answered
23
this query by pointing to
Section 2 of Article 410 which provides for the manner of
selecting which electives shall be considered. Since the rule
provides for an order of priority, it is clear that not all
electives taken by a student may24 be included in the
computation of the GWA. Dean Yu, on the other hand,
pointed out that the more basic issue is whether German
10 and 11 can be considered as electives under petitionerÊs
curriculum within the contemplation of the assailed rule.
Dean Yu further stated that the determination of which
subjects will qualify as electives is best left to the
Department of European Languages and the studentÊs
curriculum. To this issue, Prof. Bautista, Chair of the
Department of European Languages, replied that this
matter had been taken up again at the Department level
and they stood by their decision that in the Plan A of the
BA European Languages program, there is a major and a
minor language. There are no free electives and for the
minor language, subjects that fall under the same language
were the ones counted. In the case of Ms. Morales, she

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 18 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

initially thought that she would minor in German so she

took German 10 and 11 during her first semester in UP
Diliman, but eventually, she

_______________

21 Ibid.
22 Full name not provided in the records.
23 UP Code.
24 Full name not provided in the records.

243

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 243

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

changed her minor to Spanish. He said that the Advising

Committee of the Department allows a student to change
his major or minor, but courses which had been previously
taken before the shifting of major or minor are not counted
as part of the courses with credit in the curriculum.
25
As to
the interpretation of the rules, Dean Tabunda said that it
is a matter of course that the traditional interpretation of
the Department be taken. And the Department made it
clear that a free elective is different from a course taken as
a minor. With respect to the question of what
interpretation should prevail, she (Dean Tabunda) believed
that the26 traditional interpretation must be taken into
account.
In trying to get into the heart of the issue, the Board of
Regents, at its
27
1144th Meeting, went 28
into an examination
of Rule 410. Regent Hernandez considers the rule as
referring to the computation of the GWA, not only with
respect to the subjects prescribed in the curriculum, but
also takes into account all subjects that qualify as electives.
Thus, those electives may not only be part of the Plan A
curriculum but are part 29
of the program. On the contrary,
Vice President Diokno said that the understanding of the
Department and the University Council is that subjects
that qualify as electives must be in the curriculum.
Otherwise, the student can take anything they want. Vice

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 19 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

President Diokno stated further that in cases where there

are free electives, the electives are applied chronologically.
Moreover, the Plan A curriculum, incidentally, does not
allow free electives, therefore, there was nothing to put in
chronologically. This has always been the practice of the
Department which is being supported 30
by the College
Assembly and the University Council.

_______________

25 Full name not provided in the records.

26 Rollo, pp. 236-238.
27 UP Code.
28 Full name not provided in the records.
29 Full name not provided in the records.
30 Rollo, p. 162.

244

244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

Further discussing the matter, Regent31 Hernandez

requested for an interpretation of Article 410 on the issue
of whether or not the German subjects which are
supposedly electives should be included32
in the computation
of the petitionerÊs GWA. Atty. Azura, University General
Counsel, explained that the words „subjects that qualify as
electives‰ must be read in conjunction with the
immediately preceding qualifying phrase „in the
curriculum.‰ Where the first conjunctive part contains the
descriptive phrase/modifier „in the curriculum,‰ so too must
the second conjunctive part be subject to the same modifier.
Thus, „subjects that qualify as electives‰ is modified by the
words „in the curriculum.‰ In other words, in the
computation of the GWA, the grades of subjects prescribed
in the curriculum and the grades of subjects that qualify as
electives in the curriculum are included. Seen in this light,
the view that German 10 and 11 must be considered in the
computation of petitionerÊs GWA, being electives in the
European Languages undergraduate program, is incorrect.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 20 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

33
The word program in Article 410 must be interpreted in
the context of a particular curriculum. A student fulfills the
requirements of a program by following a certain
curriculum. Atty. Azura said that the University Council,
in excluding German 10 and 11 from the computation of
petitionerÊs GWA, effectively ruled that these subjects do
not qualify as electives in the course curriculum for a
degree in BA34
European Languages, major in French, minor
in Spanish.
In deliberating on the Motion for Reconsideration
submitted by petitioner, the Board of Regents, during its
1147th Meeting, reviewed the interpretation of petitionerÊs
curriculum. University General Counsel, Prof. Marvic
Leonen, explained that the interpretation of the required
subjects or allowable electives in the curriculum must be
taken in the

_______________

31 UP Code.
32 Full name not provided in the records.
33 UP Code.
34 Rollo, pp. 163-164, 166.

245

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 245

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

context of the entire courses. A student in Plan A is

required to take:

Minor Language 12/Elective.b

Minor Language 13/Elective.b
Minor Language 20/Elective.b
Minor Language 21/Elective.b
Minor Language 30/Elective.b
Minor Language 40/Elective.b
Minor Language 31/Elective.b

The numbered sequencing of the courses therefore clearly

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 21 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

implies that if German 10 and 11 would be equivalent to

Minor Language 10 and 11, then German 12, 13, 20, 21, 30,
40, 31 should have been taken by the student. The pattern
would be different if the student took up Spanish. This is so
because there are no Spanish 12, 13, and 21 offered. This
also explains why footnote „b‰ that uniformly qualifies the
quoted entries states:

(b) Courses in English, Comparative Literature, Creative Writing,

Filipino, Panitikan ng Pilipinas, Speech, Theater Arts, Art Studies,
Social Science, Philosophy, Music, Fine Arts, Education, Mass
Communication or Tourism. As minor discipline, these non-
language electives must be taken only in one department provided
that the prerequisites has/have been satisfied. For those taking
Spanish as minor, the following are recommended: Spanish 3, 20,
35
30, 31, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 105.

The first two sentences in the footnote could not refer to

„minor language.‰ The last sentence, on the other hand,
could not refer to the entry „elective.‰ There is nothing in
the footnote that could be read to imply that the „electives‰
could be language courses other than those enumerated in
the footnoteÊs first sentence. Petitioner argues that German
10 and 11 should be appreciated as the minor languages 10
and 11 re-

_______________

35 Rollo, p. 171.

246

246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

quired. And that the Spanish subjects should be taken as

the „elective‰ subjects in the curriculum. The difficulty with
this position is that the description of „elective‰ is very
clear and leaves no further room for interpretation. For
purposes of graduation and for honors, petitioner has to
abide by the requirements of the curriculum. PetitionerÊs

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 22 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

decision to shift her minor language caused the exclusion of

her grades in German 10 and 11 in the computation of her
GWA.
It must be stressed that it is the policy of the University
to thoroughly evaluate all candidates for graduation with
honors to ensure that students do not earn extra credits in
order to increase their GWA. 36
A perusal of petitionerÊs
official transcript of records will show that the subjects
German 10 and 11 are in excess of the requirements of the
program (i.e., 141 units, 27 of which are electives in the
minor field of study), to illustrate:

Subjects Number
of Units
Earned
General Education Subjects (i.e. common 69
subjects for BA programs and required subjects
under the BA European Languages program)
French (major) 45
Spanish (minor) 27
German 6
Total Units 147

The fact that the UP Board of Regents chose to accept the

interpretation of Article 410 of the UP Code as construed
by the University Council based on its time-honored
interpretation and application of said rule, after the latter
has deliberated on the matter twice, vis-à-vis petitionerÊs
interpretation,

_______________

36 Rollo, pp. 389-392.

247

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 13, 2004 247

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 23 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

is not tantamount to a whimsical exercise of judgment on

the part of the respondent. It is not grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the UP Board of Regents to uphold
the decisions of the Department of European Languages,
the College of Arts and Letters and the University Council,
when said decisions were reached after a thorough
discussion of the merits of petitionerÊs case in relation to
the established interpretation and analysis of its very own
internal rules. 37
In the case of University of the Philippines v. Ayson, UP
has been likened to an administrative agency whose
findings must be accorded respect within its areas of
competence. Well-settled is the principle that by reason of
the special knowledge and expertise of administrative
agencies over matters falling under their jurisdiction, they
are in a better position to pass judgment thereon; thus,
their findings of fact in that regard are generally
38
accorded
great respect, if not finality, by the courts. Accordingly,
the conclusion arrived at by the UP Board of Regents that
petitionerÊs grades in German 10 and 11 should not be
included in computing her GWA must be respected and
given finality, the interpretation and application of Article
410 of the UP Code being within the competence and
expertise of the Department of European Languages, the
College of Arts and Letters and the University Council to
make.
Therefore, it was error on the part of the lower court to
rule that respondentÊs discretion has been gravely abused,
thus justifying the substitution of judicial discretion in the
interpretation of Article 410 of the UP Code. The decision
of the lower court in substituting its own interpretation of
the UniversityÊs internal rules for that of the respondent
UP Board of Regents, is an intrusion into the
constitutionally protected right of the University to
academic freedom.

_______________

37 G.R. No. 88386, 17 August 1989, 176 SCRA 571.

38 Bulilan v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 130057, 22 December
1998, 300 SCRA 445, 452, citing Villaflor v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
95694, 09 October 1997, 280 SCRA 297.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 24 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

248

248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Morales vs. Board of Regents of the University of the
Philippines

Sec. 5 (2), Article XIV of the Constitution provides that

„[a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of
higher learning.‰ Academic freedom accords an institution
of higher learning the right to decide for itself its aims and
objectives and how best to attain them. This constitutional
provision is not to be construed
39
in a niggardly manner or in
a grudging fashion. Certainly, the wide sphere of
autonomy given to universities in the exercise of academic
freedom extends to the right to confer academic honors.
Thus, exercise of academic freedom grants the University
the exclusive discretion to determine to whom among its
graduates it shall confer academic recognition, based on its
established standards. And the courts may not interfere
with such exercise of discretion unless there is a clear
showing that the University has arbitrarily and
capriciously exercised its judgment. Unlike the UP Board of
Regents that has the competence and expertise in granting
honors to graduating students of the University, courts do
not have the competence to constitute themselves as an
HonorÊs Committee and substitute their judgment for that
of the University officials.
Therefore, for failure to establish that the respondent
committed grave abuse of discretion in not conferring cum
laude honors to petitioner, the lower court erred in
mandating that petitionerÊs grades be re-computed
including her marks in German 10 and 11 and to confer
upon petitioner academic honors.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of
the UP Board of Regents on 31 August 2000 denying the
appeal of the petitioner is AFFIRMED. The Order of the
Regional Trial Court dated 05 September 2002 is
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. No costs.

_______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 25 of 26
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 446 29/10/2016, 12:27 AM

39 Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of

Theology, G.R. No. L-40779, 28 November 1975, 68 SCRA 277, 284.

249

VOL. 446, DECEMBER 14, 2004 249

Roldan vs. Panganiban

SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr. and

Tinga, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, decision of the U.P. Board of Regents

affirmed. That of the Regional Trial Court reversed and set
aside.

Note.·It would be incorrect to perceive the procedural

requirements of the rules on appeal as being merely
„harmless and trivial technicalities‰ that can just be
discarded. (Casim vs. Flordeliza, 374 SCRA 386 [2002])

··o0o··

© Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001580c25099ed2d01455003600fb002c009e/p/ANZ496/?username=Guest Page 26 of 26