MANDAMUS Mandamus is an extraordinary writ commanding a tribunal,

corporation, board, officer or person, immediately or at some other

specified time, to do the act required to be done, when the respondent
[G.R. NOS. 174813-15 : March 17, 2009]
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station;
NILO HIPOS, SR. REPRESENTING DARRYL HIPOS, BENJAMIN or when the respondent excludes another from the use and enjoyment
CORSIÑO REPRESENTING JAYCEE CORSIÑO, and ERLINDA of a right or office to which the latter is entitled, and there is no other
VILLARUEL REPRESENTING ARTHUR plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.3
VILLARUEL, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE RTC JUDGE TEODORO
A. BAY, Presiding Judge, RTC, Hall of Justice, Quezon City,
As an extraordinary writ, the remedy of mandamus lies only to compel
Branch 86, Respondent.
an officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary
one; mandamus will not issue to control the exercise of discretion by a
DECISION public officer where the law imposes upon him the duty to exercise his
judgment in reference to any manner in which he is required to act,
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: because it is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the
court.4

This is a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court

seeking a reversal of the Order dated 2 October 2006 of respondent In the case at bar, the act which petitioners pray that we compel the
Judge Teodoro A. Bay of Branch 86 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) trial court to do is to grant the Office of the City Prosecutor's Motion
of Quezon City, which denied the Motion to Withdraw Informations of for Withdrawal of Informations against petitioners. In effect,
the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City. petitioners seek to curb Judge Bay's exercise of judicial discretion.

The facts of the case are as follows. There is indeed an exception to the rule that matters involving
judgment and discretion are beyond the reach of a writ of mandamus,
for such writ may be issued to compel action in those matters, when
On 15 December 2003, two Informations for the crime of rape and one refused.5 However, mandamus is never available to direct the exercise
Information for the crime of acts of lasciviousness were filed against of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the retraction or
petitioners Darryl Hipos, Jaycee Corsiño, Arthur Villaruel and two reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of either. 6 In other
others before Branch 86 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, words, while a judge refusing to act on a Motion to Withdraw
acting as a Family Court, presided by respondent Judge Bay. The cases Informations can be compelled by mandamus to act on the same,
were docketed as Criminal Cases No. Q-03-123284, No. Q-03-123285 he cannot be compelled to act in a certain way, i.e., to grant or deny
and No. Q-03-123286. The Informations were signed by Assistant City such Motion. In the case at bar, Judge Bay did not refuse to act on the
Prosecutor Ronald C. Torralba. Motion to Withdraw Informations; he had already acted on it by
denying the same. Accordingly, mandamus is not available anymore. If
On 23 February 2004, private complainants AAA1 and BBB filed a petitioners believed that Judge Bay committed grave abuse of
Motion for Reinvestigation asking Judge Bay to order the City discretion in the issuance of such Order denying the Motion to
Prosecutor of Quezon City to study if the proper Informations had Withdraw Informations, the proper remedy of petitioners should have
been filed against petitioners and their co-accused. Judge Bay granted been to file a Petition for Certiorari against the assailed Order of Judge
the Motion and ordered a reinvestigation of the cases. Bay.

On 19 May 2004, petitioners filed their Joint Memorandum to Dismiss Petitioners counter that the above conclusion, which has been argued
the Case[s] before the City Prosecutor. They claimed that there was no by the Solicitor General, is contrary to a ruling of this Court, which
probable cause to hold them liable for the crimes charged. allegedly states that the proper remedy in such cases is a Petition for
Mandamus and not Certiorari. Petitioners cite the following excerpt
from our ruling in Sanchez v. Demetriou7 :
On 10 August 2004, the Office of the City Prosecutor issued a
Resolution on the reinvestigation affirming the Informations filed
against petitioners and their co-accused in Criminal Cases No. Q-03- The appreciation of the evidence involves the use of discretion on the
123284-86. The Resolution was signed by Assistant City Prosecutor part of the prosecutor, and we do not find in the case at bar a clear
Raniel S. Cruz and approved by City Prosecutor Claro A. Arellano. showing by the petitioner of a grave abuse of such discretion.

On 3 March 2006, 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor Lamberto C. de Vera, The decision of the prosecutor may be reversed or modified by the
treating the Joint Memorandum to Dismiss the Case as an appeal of Secretary of Justice or in special cases by the President of the
the 10 August 2004 Resolution, reversed the Resolution dated 10 Philippines. But even this Court cannot order the prosecution of a
August 2004, holding that there was lack of probable cause. On the person against whom the prosecutor does not find sufficient evidence
same date, the City Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw to support at least a prima facie case. The courts try and absolve or
Informations before Judge Bay. convict the accused but as a rule have no part in the initial decision to
prosecute him.

On 2 October 2006, Judge Bay denied the Motion to Withdraw

Informations in an Order of even date. The possible exception is where there is an unmistakable showing of
grave abuse of discretion that will justify a judicial intrusion into the
precincts of the executive. But in such a case the proper remedy to call
Without moving for a reconsideration of the above assailed Order, for such exception is a petition for mandamus, not certiorari or
petitioners filed the present Petition for Mandamus, bringing forth this prohibition.8 (Emphases supplied.)
lone issue for our consideration:

Petitioners have taken the above passage way out of its context. In
CAN THE HON. SUPREME COURT COMPEL RESPONDENT JUDGE BAY the case of Sanchez, Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez brought a
TO DISMISS THE CASE THROUGH A WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY VIRTUE Petition for Certiorari before this Court, challenging the order of the
OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF respondent Judge therein denying his motion to quash the Information
QUEZON CITY FINDING NO PROBABLE CAUSE AGAINST THE filed against him and six other persons for alleged rape and homicide.
ACCUSED AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILING A MOTION TO WITHDRAW One of the arguments of Mayor Sanchez was that there was
INFORMATION?2 discrimination against him because of the non-inclusion of two other

1
persons in the Information. We held that even this Court cannot order Having done so, it behooved the respondent Judge to wait for a final
the prosecution of a person against whom the prosecutor does not find resolution of the incident. In Marcelo v. Court of Appeals, this Court
sufficient evidence to support at least a prima facie case. However, if ruled:
there was an unmistakable showing of grave abuse of discretion on
the part of the prosecutors in that case, Mayor Sanchez should have
Accordingly, we rule that the trial court in a criminal case which takes
filed a Petition for Mandamus to compel the filing of charges against
cognizance of an accused's motion for review of the resolution of the
said two other persons.
investigating prosecutor or for reinvestigation and defers the
arraignment until resolution of the said motion must act on the
In the case at bar, the Petition for Mandamus is directed not against resolution reversing the investigating prosecutor's finding or on a
the prosecution, but against the trial court, seeking to compel the trial motion to dismiss based thereon only upon proof that such resolution
court to grant the Motion to Withdraw Informations by the City is already final in that no appeal was taken thereon to the Department
Prosecutor's Office. The prosecution has already filed a case against of Justice.
petitioners. Recently, in Santos v. Orda, Jr.,9 we reiterated the doctrine
we established in the leading case of Crespo v. Mogul,10 that once a
The resolution of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rutor recommending
criminal complaint or an information is filed in court, any disposition or
the dismissal of the case never became final, for it was not approved
dismissal of the case or acquittal or conviction of the accused rests
by the Provincial Prosecutor. On the contrary, the latter disapproved it.
within the jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court.
As a consequence, the final resolution with respect to the
Thus, we held:
reinvestigation is that of the Provincial Prosecutor, for under Section 4,
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, no complaint or information may be
In Crespo v. Mogul, the Court held that once a criminal complaint or filed or dismissed by an investigating fiscal without the prior written
information is filed in court, any disposition of the case or dismissal or authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state
acquittal or conviction of the accused rests within the exclusive prosecutor. Also, under Section l(d) of R.A. No. 5180, as amended by
jurisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court. The trial P.D. No. 77 and P.D. No. 911.14
court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case before it.
A motion to dismiss the case filed by the public prosecutor should be
As can be clearly seen, the statement quoted by petitioners from
addressed to the court who has the option to grant or deny the same.
Montesa, Jr. is not meant to establish a doctrine that the judge should
Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the rule applies to a
just follow the determination by the prosecutor of whether or not there
motion to withdraw the Information or to dismiss the case even before
is probable cause. On the contrary, Montesa, Jr. states:
or after arraignment of the accused. The only qualification is that the
action of the court must not impair the substantial rights of the
accused or the right of the People or the private complainant to due The rule is settled that once a criminal complaint or information is filed
process of law. When the trial court grants a motion of the public in court, any disposition thereof, such as its dismissal or the conviction
prosecutor to dismiss the case, or to quash the Information, or to or acquittal of the accused, rests in the sound discretion of the court.
withdraw the Information in compliance with the directive of the While the prosecutor retains the discretion and control of the
Secretary of Justice, or to deny the said motion, it does so not out of prosecution of the case, he cannot impose his opinion on the court.
subservience to or defiance of the directive of the Secretary of Justice The court is the best and sole judge on what to do with the case.
but in sound exercise of its judicial prerogative. Accordingly, a motion to dismiss the case filed by the prosecutor
before or after the arraignment, or after a reinvestigation, or upon
instructions of the Secretary of Justice who reviewed the records upon
Petitioners also claim that since Judge Bay granted a Motion for
reinvestigation, should be addressed to the discretion of the court. The
Reinvestigation, he should have "deferred to the Resolution of Asst.
action of the court must not, however, impair the substantial rights of
City Prosecutor De Vera withdrawing the case."11 Petitioners cite the
the accused or the right of the People to due process of law.15
following portion of our Decision in People v. Montesa, Jr.12 :

In a seemingly desperate attempt on the part of petitioners' counsel,

In the instant case, the respondent Judge granted the motion for
he tries to convince us that a judge is allowed to deny a Motion to
reinvestigation and directed the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Withdraw Informations from the prosecution only when there is grave
Bulacan to conduct the reinvestigation. The former was, therefore,
abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors moving for such
deemed to have deferred to the authority of the prosecution arm of
withdrawal; and that, where there is no grave abuse of discretion on
the Government to consider the so-called new relevant and material
the part of the prosecutors, the denial of the Motion to Withdraw
evidence and determine whether the information it had filed should
Informations is void. Petitioners' counsel states in the Memorandum:
stand.13

6.10. Furthermore, the ORDER dated October 2, 2006 of the

Like what was done to our ruling in Sanchez, petitioners took specific
Respondent Judge BAY consisting of 9 pages which was attached to
statements from our Decision, carefully cutting off the portions which
the URGENT PETITION did not point out any iota of grave abuse of
would expose the real import of our pronouncements. The Petition
discretion committed by Asst. City Prosecutor De Vera in issuing his
for Certiorari in Montesa, Jr. was directed against a judge who, after
Resolution in favor of the sons of the Petitioners. Hence, the ORDER
granting the Petition for Reinvestigation filed by the accused,
issued by RJBAY is NULL and VOID in view of the recent ruling of the
proceeded nonetheless to arraign the accused; and, shortly thereafter,
Hon. Supreme Court in Ledesma v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113216,
the judge decided to dismiss the case on the basis of a Resolution of
September 5, 1997, 86 SCAD 695, 278 SCRA 657 which states that:
the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor recommending the dismissal of the
case. The dismissal of the case in Montesa, Jr. was done despite the
disapproval of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor's Resolution by the "In the absence of a finding of grave abuse of discretion, the court's
Provincial Prosecutor (annotated in the same Resolution), and despite bare denial of a motion to withdraw information pursuant to the
the fact that the reinvestigation the latter ordered was still ongoing, Secretary's resolution is void."(Underscoring ours).
since the Resolution of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor had not yet
attained finality. We held that the judge should have waited for the 6.11. It is therefore respectfully submitted that the Hon. Supreme
conclusion of the Petition for Reinvestigation he ordered, before acting Court disregard the argument of the OSG because of its falsity.16
on whether or not the case should be dismissed for lack of probable
cause, and before proceeding with the arraignment. Thus, the
continuation of the above paragraph of our Decision in Montesa, Jr. This statement of petitioners' counsel is utterly misleading. There is no
reads: such statement in our Decision in Ledesma.17 The excerpt from
Ledesma, which appears to have a resemblance to the statement
allegedly quoted from said case, provides:

2
No Grave Abuse of Discretion in the Resolution of the Secretary of Let the case be set for arraignment and pre-trial on October 24, 2006
Justice at 8:30 o'clock in the morning.20 (Underscoring ours.)

In the light of recent holdings in Marcelo and Martinez; and Thus, petitioners claim that since even the respondent judge himself
considering that the issue of the correctness of the justice secretary's found no probable cause against them, the Motion to Withdraw
resolution has been amply threshed out in petitioner's letter, the Informations by the Office of the City Prosecutor should be granted.21
information, the resolution of the secretary of justice, the motion to
dismiss, and even the exhaustive discussion in the motion for
Even a cursory reading of the assailed Order, however, clearly shows
reconsideration - all of which were submitted to the court - the trial
that the insertion of the word "no" in the above dispositive portion was
judge committed grave abuse of discretion when it denied the motion
a mere clerical error. The assailed Order states in full:
to withdraw the information, based solely on his bare and ambiguous
reliance on Crespo. The trial court's order is inconsistent with our
repetitive calls for an independent and competent assessment of the After a careful study of the sworn statements of the complainants and
issue(s) presented in the motion to dismiss. The trial judge was tasked the resolution dated March 3, 2006 of 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor
to evaluate the secretary's recommendation finding the absence of Lamberto C. de Vera, the Court finds that there was probable cause
probable cause to hold petitioner criminally liable for libel. He failed to against the herein accused. The actuations of the complainants after
do so. He merely ruled to proceed with the trial without stating his the alleged rapes and acts of lasciviousness cannot be the basis of
reasons for disregarding the secretary's recommendation. 18 (Emphasis dismissal or withdrawal of the herein cases. Failure to shout or offer
supplied.) tenatious resistance did not make voluntary the complainants'
submission to the criminal acts of the accused (People v. Velasquez,
377 SCRA 214, 2002). The complainants' affidavits indicate that the
It very much appears that the counsel of petitioners is purposely
accused helped one another in committing the acts complained of.
misleading this Court, in violation of Rule 10.02 of the Code of
Considering that the attackers were not strangers but their trusted
Professional Responsibility, which provides:
classmates who enticed them to go to the house where they were
molested, the complainants cannot be expected to react forcefully or
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent violently in protecting themselves from the unexpected turn of events.
the contents of a paper, the language or the argument of opposing Considering also that both complainants were fifteen (15) years of age
counsel, or the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite as law and considered children under our laws, the ruling of the Supreme
a provision already rendered inoperative by repel or amendment, or Court in People v. Malones, G.R. NOS. 124388-90, March 11, 2004
assert as a fact that which has not been proved. becomes very relevant. The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

Counsel's use of block quotation and quotation marks signifies that he Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act
intends to make it appear that the passages are the exact words of the the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. It is
Court. Furthermore, putting the words "Underscoring ours" after the not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone
text implies that, except for the underscoring, the text is a faithful traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults
reproduction of the original. Accordingly, we are ordering Atty. under similar circumstances. The range of emotions shown by rape
Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. to show cause why he should not be disciplined victim is yet to be captured even by calculus. It is, thus, unrealistic to
as a member of the Bar. expect uniform reactions from rape victims (People v. Malones, G.R.
NOS. 124388-90, March 11, 2004).
To clarify, we never stated in Ledesma that a judge is allowed to deny
a Motion to Withdraw Information from the prosecution only when The Court finds no need to discuss in detail the alleged actuations of
there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors the complainants after the alleged rapes and acts of lasciviousness.
moving for such withdrawal. Neither did we rule therein that where The alleged actuations are evidentiary in nature and should be
there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the prosecutors, evaluated after full blown trial on the merits. This is necessary to avoid
the denial of the Motion to Withdraw Information is void. What we a suspicion of prejudgment against the accused.22
held therein is that a trial judge commits grave abuse of discretion if
he denies a Motion to Withdraw Information without an independent
As can be seen, the body of the assailed Order not only plainly stated
and complete assessment of the issues presented in such Motion.
that the court found probable cause against the petitioners, but
Thus, the opening paragraph of Ledesma states:
likewise provided an adequate discussion of the reasons for such
finding. Indeed, the general rule is that where there is a conflict
When confronted with a motion to withdraw an information on the between the dispositive portion or the fallo and the body of the
ground of lack of probable cause based on a resolution of the decision, the fallo controls. However, where the inevitable conclusion
secretary of justice, the bounden duty of the trial court is to make an from the body of the decision is so clear as to show that there was a
independent assessment of the merits of such motion. Having acquired mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the decision will
jurisdiction over the case, the trial court is not bound by such prevail.23
resolution but is required to evaluate it before proceeding further with
the trial. While the secretary's ruling is persuasive, it is not binding on
In sum, petitioners' resort to a Petition for Mandamus to compel the
courts. A trial court, however, commits reversible error or even grave
trial judge to grant their Motion to Withdraw Informations is improper.
abuse of discretion if it refuses/neglects to evaluate such
While mandamus is available to compel action on matters involving
recommendation and simply insists on proceeding with the trial on the
judgment and discretion when refused, it is never available to direct
mere pretext of having already acquired jurisdiction over the criminal
the exercise of judgment or discretion in a particular way or the
action.19 (Emphases supplied.)ςηαñrοblεš νιr†υαl lαω
retraction or reversal of an action already taken in the exercise of
lιbrαrÿ
either.24 The trial court, when confronted with a Motion to Withdraw an
Information on the ground of lack of probable cause, is not bound by
Petitioners also try to capitalize on the fact that the dispositive portion the resolution of the prosecuting arm of the government, but is
of the assailed Order apparently states that there was no probable required to make an independent assessment of the merits of such
cause against petitioners: motion, a requirement satisfied by the respondent judge in the case at
bar.25
WHEREFORE, finding no probable cause against the herein accused for
the crimes of rapes and acts of lasciviousness, the motion to withdraw Finally, if only to appease petitioners who came to this Court seeking a
informations is DENIED. review of the finding of probable cause by the trial court, we
nevertheless carefully reviewed the records of the case. After going

3
through the same, we find that we are in agreement with the trial respondent Roberto T. Lastimoso, then the Chief of the PNP, endorsing
court that there is indeed probable cause against the petitioners the constables’ entreaties and requesting for a feedback thereon.10
sufficient to hold them for trial. We decided to omit a detailed
discussion of the merits of the case, as we are not unmindful of the
Without any response from the Chief of the PNP, and their pleas for
undue influence that might result should this Court do so, even if such
the issuance of the absorption orders still unacted upon, petitioners
discussion is only intended to focus on the finding of probable cause.
instituted, on September 30, 1998, a petition for mandamus docketed
as Civil Case No. Q-98-35659 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
WHEREFORE, the instant Petition for Mandamus is DISMISSED. Let the Quezon City.11
records of this case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City for the resumption of the proceedings therein. The Regional Trial
During the pendency of the said petition, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution
Court is directed to act on the case with dispatch.
No. 99-061 on April 19, 1999 recalling the earlier Resolution No. 98-
105.12 The recall was based on the Commission’s finding that the list
Atty. Procopio S. Beltran, Jr. is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE why he submitted by Galvante was not actually of the constables whose
should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for his disquieting applications for absorption were indorsed for approval, but of those
conduct as herein discussed. whose applications were still to be reviewed, evaluated and disposed
of. In other words, the 126 named in the list were still to be
interviewed and their applications to be deliberated upon by the PNP
SO ORDERED.
Special Committee.13

G.R. No. 161735               September 25, 2007

On November 15, 2001, however, the RTC rendered its Decision 14 in
the mandamus case declaring as void ab initio NAPOLCOM Resolution
EX-C1C JIMMY B. SANCHEZ and EX-C2C SALVADOR A. No. 99-061 and ruling in favor of the petitioners. The dispositive
METEORO, Petitioners, portion of the Decision reads:
vs.
ROBERTO T. LASTIMOSO, in his capacity as DIRECTOR
Accordingly, therefore, the petition is hereby granted. The Director-
GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, Respondent.
General of the Philippine National Police is hereby directed to
immediately issue absorption orders to the petitioners.
DECISION
Resolution No. 99-061 is declared void ab initio.
NACHURA, J.:
IT IS SO ORDERED.15
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court assailing the June 18, 2003 Decision2 of the Court of
On appeal, the CA, in the assailed June 18, 2003 Decision,16 reversed
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 68989 and the January 15, 2004
the ruling of the trial court and ruled that a writ of mandamus could
Resolution3 denying the motion for reconsideration thereof.
not be issued because petitioners had not established with distinct
clarity their right to be absorbed into the PNP. The CA disposed of the
In 1989, petitioner Sanchez, a constable in the Philippine Constabulary appeal as follows:
(PC), was discharged from the service for allegedly losing his service
firearm. Petitioner Meteoro, also a constable, was likewise discharged
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The decision of the trial court
from the service in 1990 for being absent without leave. On appeal,
dated November 15, 2001 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
they were both cleared of all charges. They then applied for
reinstatement but their applications were not acted upon even up to
the integration of the PC into the Philippine National Police (PNP).4 SO ORDERED.17

On January 27, 1998, the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) The appellate court later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration
issued Resolution No. 98-037 considering as absorbed into the police in the likewise assailed January 15, 2004 Resolution.18
force, among others, those who had been discharged by virtue of
pending administrative or criminal cases but who were later acquitted
Aggrieved, petitioners brought the case before us via a petition for
or had their cases dismissed, and who subsequently filed petitions for
review on certiorari, raising for our disposition the following issues:
reinstatement that were not acted upon by the PNP. 5 Then, on April 3,
1998, NAPOLCOM
I
issued Resolution No. 98-105 affirming and confirming the absorption
into the PNP, effective on January 27, 1998, of the 126 ex-PC WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS HAVE A CLEAR LEGAL
constables named in the list submitted by Director Edgar C. Galvante RIGHT TO BE ABSORBED IN THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
of the PNP Directorate for Personnel and Records Management POLICE.
(DPRM).6 Petitioners Sanchez and Meteoro are in numbers 90 and 122,
respectively, of the Galvante list.7 II.

Subsequently, on May 28, 1998, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Rogelio A. WHETHER OR NOT RESOLUTION NO. 99-061 IS VOID FOR
Pureza issued a Memorandum to then Chief of the PNP Santiago Alino BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. 7965 AND
for the issuance of absorption orders to the 45 PC constables included ITS IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTIONS NO. 98-037 AND 98-
in the initial batch of those covered by the PNP Board 105.
Resolutions.8 Petitioner Sanchez is in number 45 of that list.9

III.
As no absorption order had yet been issued by the Chief of the PNP,
the constables in the list requested the assistance of the Secretary of
the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). On July 29,
1998, the Office of the Secretary of the DILG sent a memorandum to

4
 WHETHER OR NOT PETITIONERS HAVE A CAUSE OF Even if, for the sake of argument, petitioners can derive a right from
ACTION FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE RESPONDENT NAPOLCOM Resolution Nos. 98-037 and 98-105, still their right
TO ABSORB THE PETITIONERS IN THE PHILIPPINE collapses and their mandamus petition becomes moot with the
NATIONAL POLICE.19 issuance by NAPOLCOM of Resolution No. 99-061 recalling the
approval of their absorption. The trial court should then have
immediately dismissed the mandamus petition when the OSG
The petition has no merit.
submitted a copy of Resolution No. 99-061 because well-settled is the
rule that courts will not resolve a moot question.29
We have repeatedly stressed in our prior decisions that the remedy
of mandamus is employed only to compel the performance, when
Also improper is the trial court’s declaration that NAPOLCOM
refused, of a ministerial duty, but not to require anyone to fulfill a
Resolution No. 99-061 is void ab initio. In the petition filed below, only
discretionary one. The issuance of the writ is simply a command to
the Chief of the PNP is impleaded as the party-
exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already
defendant.30 NAPOLCOM was never impleaded. As it was the latter, a
imposed.20 In Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village
separate entity, which had issued Resolution No. 99-061, NAPOLCOM
Lessee Homeowners Association, Inc.,21 we emphasized, through the
was an indispensable party over which the trial court should have
erudite and eloquent ponencia of Justice Dante O. Tinga, that the writ
acquired jurisdiction. Since it was not impleaded, NAPOLCOM remains
can be issued only when the applicant’s legal right to the performance
a stranger to the case, and strangers are not bound by the judgment
of a particular act sought to be compelled is clear and complete, one
rendered by the court.31 The absence of an indispensable party renders
which is indubitably granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law,
all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority
thus:
to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present.32

In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential that,

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The June
on the one hand, petitioner has a clear legal right to the claim that is
18, 2003 Decision and the January 15, 2004 Resolution of the Court of
sought and that, on the other hand, respondent has an imperative
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68989 are AFFIRMED.
duty to perform that which is demanded of him. Mandamus will not
issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is
questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal SO ORDERED.
function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not
to inquire and to adjudicate. Thus, it is neither the office nor the aim
G.R. No. 156052             March 7, 2007
of the writ to secure a legal right but to implement that which is
already established. Unless the right to relief sought is unclouded,
mandamus will not issue.22 SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS), VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T.
CABIGAO, and BONIFACIO S. TUMBOKON, Petitioners,
vs.
Viewed in light of the said guideposts, the PNP Chief’s issuance of the
HON. JOSE L. ATIENZA, JR., in his capacity as Mayor of the
orders for the absorption of herein petitioners in the police force is not
City of Manila, Respondent.
compellable by a writ of mandamus precisely because the same does
not involve a performance of a ministerial duty. Let it be noted that
petitioners were discharged from the PC service, subsequently cleared DECISION
of the charges against them, applied for reinstatement but their
applications were not acted upon until the integration of the PC into CORONA,  J.:
the PNP in 1990 when R.A. No. 697523 was enacted. Thus, we no
longer speak of the reinstatement of the petitioners to the service
because the Philippine Constabulary no longer exists, but of their In this original petition for mandamus,1 petitioners Social Justice
employment in the PNP which is, as we held in Gloria v. De Society (SJS), Vladimir Alarique T. Cabigao and Bonifacio S. Tumbokon
Guzman,24 technically an issuance of a new appointment. The power to seek to compel respondent Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., mayor of the City
appoint is essentially discretionary to be performed by the officer in of Manila, to enforce Ordinance No. 8027.
which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being
that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by The antecedents are as follows.
law.25 Consequently, it cannot be the subject of an application for a
writ of mandamus.26
On November 20, 2001, the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila
enacted Ordinance No. 8027.2 Respondent mayor approved the
Furthermore, the petitioners do not have a clear legal right over the ordinance on November 28, 2001.3 It became effective on December
issuance of the absorption orders.1âwphi1 They cannot claim the right 28, 2001, after its publication.4
to be issued an appointment based on the NAPOLCOM issuances,
specifically Resolution Nos. 98-037 and 98-105. Suffice it to state that
R.A. No. 6975 clearly provides that the power to appoint PNP Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted pursuant to the police power
personnel with the rank of "Police Officer I" to "Senior Police Officer delegated to local government units, a principle described as the
IV" to which petitioners may be appointed 27 is vested in the PNP power inherent in a government to enact laws, within constitutional
regional director or in the Chief of the PNP as the case may be, and limits, to promote the order, safety, health, morals and general welfare
not in the NAPOLCOM, thus: of the society.5 This is evident from Sections 1 and 3 thereof which
state:

Section 31. Appointment of PNP Officers and Members.—The

appointment of the officers and members of the PNP shall be effected SECTION 1. For the purpose of promoting sound urban planning and
in the following manner: ensuring health, public safety, and general welfare of the residents of
Pandacan and Sta. Ana as well as its adjoining areas, the land use of
[those] portions of land bounded by the Pasig River in the north, PNR
(a) Police Officer I to Senior Police Officer IV.—Appointed by the PNP Railroad Track in the east, Beata St. in the south, Palumpong St. in the
regional director for regional personnel or by the Chief of the PNP for southwest, and Estero de Pancacan in the west[,] PNR Railroad in the
the national headquarters personnel and attested by the Civil Service northwest area, Estero de Pandacan in the [n]ortheast, Pasig River in
Commission. the southeast and Dr. M.L. Carreon in the southwest. The area of
Punta, Sta. Ana bounded by the Pasig River, Marcelino Obrero St.,
x x x28 Mayo 28 St., and F. Manalo Street, are hereby reclassified from
Industrial II to Commercial I.

5
xxx xxx xxx The Sangguniang Panlungsod ratified the MOU in Resolution No.
97.7 In the same resolution, the Sanggunian declared that the MOU
was effective only for a period of six months starting July 25,
SEC. 3. Owners or operators of industries and other businesses, the
2002.8 Thereafter, on January 30, 2003, the Sanggunian adopted
operation of which are no longer permitted under Section 1 hereof, are
Resolution No. 139 extending the validity of Resolution No. 97 to April
hereby given a period of six (6) months from the date of effectivity of
30, 2003 and authorizing Mayor Atienza to issue special business
this Ordinance within which to cease and desist from the operation of
permits to the oil companies. Resolution No. 13, s. 2003 also called for
businesses which are hereby in consequence, disallowed.
a reassessment of the ordinance.10

Ordinance No. 8027 reclassified the area described therein from

Meanwhile, petitioners filed this original action for mandamus on
industrial to commercial and directed the owners and operators of
December 4, 2002 praying that Mayor Atienza be compelled to enforce
businesses disallowed under Section 1 to cease and desist from
Ordinance No. 8027 and order the immediate removal of the terminals
operating their businesses within six months from the date of
of the oil companies.11
effectivity of the ordinance. Among the businesses situated in the area
are the so-called "Pandacan Terminals" of the oil companies Caltex
(Philippines), Inc., Petron Corporation and Pilipinas Shell Petroleum The issues raised by petitioners are as follows:
Corporation.
1. whether respondent has the mandatory legal duty to
However, on June 26, 2002, the City of Manila and the Department of enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the
Energy (DOE) entered into a memorandum of understanding Pandacan Terminals, and
(MOU)6 with the oil companies in which they agreed that "the scaling
down of the Pandacan Terminals [was] the most viable and practicable
2. whether the June 26, 2002 MOU and the resolutions
option." Under the MOU, the oil companies agreed to perform the
ratifying it can amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027.12
following:

Petitioners contend that respondent has the mandatory legal duty,

Section 1. - Consistent with the objectives stated above, the OIL
under Section 455 (b) (2) of the Local Government Code (RA
COMPANIES shall, upon signing of this MOU, undertake a program to
7160),13 to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 and order the removal of the
scale down the Pandacan Terminals which shall include, among others,
Pandacan Terminals of the oil companies. Instead, he has allowed
the immediate removal/decommissioning process of TWENTY EIGHT
them to stay.
(28) tanks starting with the LPG spheres and the commencing of works
for the creation of safety buffer and green zones surrounding the
Pandacan Terminals. xxx Respondent’s defense is that Ordinance No. 8027 has been superseded
by the MOU and the resolutions.14 However, he also confusingly argues
that the ordinance and MOU are not inconsistent with each other and
Section 2. – Consistent with the scale-down program mentioned
that the latter has not amended the former. He insists that the
above, the OIL COMPANIES shall establish joint operations and
ordinance remains valid and in full force and effect and that the MOU
management, including the operation of common, integrated and/or
did not in any way prevent him from enforcing and implementing it. He
shared facilities, consistent with international and domestic technical,
maintains that the MOU should be considered as a mere guideline for
safety, environmental and economic considerations and standards.
its full implementation.15
Consequently, the joint operations of the OIL COMPANIES in the
Pandacan Terminals shall be limited to the common and integrated
areas/facilities. A separate agreement covering the commercial and Under Rule 65, Section 316 of the Rules of Court, a petition
operational terms and conditions of the joint operations, shall be for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board,
entered into by the OIL COMPANIES. officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which
the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or
station. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ that is employed to compel
Section 3. - The development and maintenance of the safety and
the performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty that is already
green buffer zones mentioned therein, which shall be taken from the
imposed on the respondent and there is no other plain, speedy and
properties of the OIL COMPANIES and not from the surrounding
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The petitioner should
communities, shall be the sole responsibility of the OIL COMPANIES.
have a well-defined, clear and certain legal right to the performance of
the act and it must be the clear and imperative duty of respondent to
The City of Manila and the DOE, on the other hand, committed to do do the act required to be done.17
the following:
Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance
Section 1. - The City Mayor shall endorse to the City Council this MOU with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt
for its appropriate action with the view of implementing the spirit and exists. The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command
intent thereof. and to expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate; thus, it is neither the
office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal right but to implement
that which is already established. Unless the right to the relief sought
Section 2. - The City Mayor and the DOE shall, consistent with the
is unclouded, mandamus will not issue.18
spirit and intent of this MOU, enable the OIL COMPANIES to
continuously operate in compliance with legal requirements, within the
limited area resulting from the joint operations and the scale down To support the assertion that petitioners have a clear legal right to the
program. enforcement of the ordinance, petitioner SJS states that it is a political
party registered with the Commission on Elections and has its offices in
Manila. It claims to have many members who are residents of Manila.
Section 3. - The DOE and the City Mayor shall monitor the OIL
The other petitioners, Cabigao and Tumbokon, are allegedly residents
COMPANIES’ compliance with the provisions of this MOU.
of Manila.

Section 4. - The CITY OF MANILA and the national government shall
We need not belabor this point. We have ruled in previous cases that
protect the safety buffer and green zones and shall exert all efforts at
when a mandamus proceeding concerns a public right and its object is
preventing future occupation or encroachment into these areas by
to compel a public duty, the people who are interested in the
illegal settlers and other unauthorized parties.
execution of the laws are regarded as the real parties in interest and
they need not show any specific interest.19 Besides, as residents of

6
Manila, petitioners have a direct interest in the enforcement of the Dickson) and the Sangguniang Bayan  of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya,
city’s ordinances. Respondent never questioned the right of petitioners informing them of the illegal sublease she entered into with petitioners
to institute this proceeding. Rodolfo Laygo and Willie Laygo over Public Market Stalls No. 77-A, 77-
B, 78-A, and 78-B, which petitioners leased from the Municipal
Government. Bandrang claimed that petitioners told her to vacate the
On the other hand, the Local Government Code imposes upon
stalls, which they subsequently subleased to another. Bandrang
respondent the duty, as city mayor, to "enforce all laws and
expressed her willingness to testify against petitioners if need be, and
ordinances relative to the governance of the city.">20 One of these is
appealed that she be given priority in the future to lease the stalls she
Ordinance No. 8027. As the chief executive of the city, he has the duty
vacated. 5
to enforce Ordinance No. 8027 as long as it has not been repealed by
the Sanggunian or annulled by the courts.21 He has no other choice. It is his ministerial
duty to do so. In Dimaporo v. Mitra, Jr.,22 we stated the reason for this: In August 2005, the Sangguniang Bayan  endorsed the letter of
Bandrang and a copy of Resolution No. 183-2004 6 to Mayor Dickson
for appropriate action. The Sanggunian  informed Mayor Dickson that
These officers cannot refuse to perform their duty on the ground of an alleged invalidity of the
the matter falls under the jurisdiction of his office since
statute imposing the duty. The reason for this is obvious. It might seriously hinder the transaction it (Sanggunian)  has already passed and approved Resolution No. 183-
of public business if these officers were to be permitted in all cases to question the 2004, which authorized Mayor Dickson to enforce the provision against
constitutionality of statutes and ordinances imposing duties upon them and which have not subleasing of stalls in the public market.7
judicially been declared unconstitutional. Officers of the government from the highest to the

lowest are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.23 Mayor Dickson, in response, informed the Sanggunian  that the stalls
were constructed under a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) scheme,
which meant that the petitioners had the right to keep their stalls until
The question now is whether the MOU entered into by respondent with the oil companies and the the BOT agreement was satisfied. He then asked the Sanggunian  if
subsequent resolutions passed by the Sanggunian have made the respondent’s duty to enforce provisions were made to sanction lessees under the BOT scheme
similar to the provision against subleasing (Item No. 9) in the contract
Ordinance No. 8027 doubtful, unclear or uncertain. This is also connected to the second issue
of lease.8
raised by petitioners, that is, whether the MOU and Resolution Nos. 97, s. 2002 and 13, s. 2003

of the Sanggunian can amend or repeal Ordinance No. 8027.

Thereafter, Bandrang wrote another letter to the Sanggunian,  praying
and recommending to Mayor Dickson, by way of a resolution, the
We need not resolve this issue. Assuming that the terms of the MOU were inconsistent with cancellation of the lease contract between the Municipality and
petitioners for violating the provision on subleasing. She suggested
Ordinance No. 8027, the resolutions which ratified it and made it binding on the City of Manila
that after which, the stalls can be bidded upon anew and leased to the
expressly gave it full force and effect only until April 30, 2003. Thus, at present, there is successful bidder. She made the suggestion because Mayor Dickson
nothing that legally hinders respondent from enforcing Ordinance No. 8027.24 did not act on her concerns even after the Sanggunian  referred them
to him. 9

Ordinance No. 8027 was enacted right after the Philippines, along with the rest of the world,
The Sanggunian  once again referred the letter of Bandrang, together
witnessed the horror of the September 11, 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade
with a copy of Resolution No. 183-2004, to Mayor Dickson for
Center in New York City. The objective of the ordinance is to protect the residents of Manila from appropriate action. The Sanggunian  opined that they no longer need
the catastrophic devastation that will surely occur in case of a terrorist attack 25 on the Pandacan to make any recommendation to Mayor Dickson because Resolution
Terminals. No reason exists why such a protective measure should be delayed. No. 183-2004 already empowered and authorized him to cancel the
lease contracts pursuant to its pertinent provisions. 10

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. Respondent Hon. Jose L. Atienza, Jr., as mayor
Mayor Dickson, however, did not act on the letter of Bandrang and on
of the City of Manila, is directed to immediately enforce Ordinance No. 8027. the referrals of the Sanggunian.  Thus, Bandrang filed a Petition
for Mandamus  11 against him before the Regional Trial Court of
SO ORDERED.
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya (RTC). Subsequently, she amended her
petition to implead petitioners. 12 Bandrang alleged that despite
already being aware of the violations of the lease contracts of
January 11, 2017 petitioners with the Municipality, Mayor Dickson still refused to enforce
the provisions of the lease contracts against subleasing. Bandrang
concluded that Mayor Dickson's inaction can only be construed as an
G.R. No. 188448 unlawful neglect in the performance and enforcement of his public
duty as the Chief Executive of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. Thus, she
RODOLFO LAYGO and WILLIE LAYGO, Petitioners, sought an order directing Mayor Dickson to immediately cancel the
vs. lease between the Municipal Government and petitioners over Public
MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF SOLANO, NUEVA VIZCAYA, Respondent. Market Stall Nos. 77-A, 77-B, 78-A, and 78-B, and to lease the vacated
stalls to interested persons. 13
DECISION
In his Answer with Special and Affirmative Defenses, 14 Mayor Dickson
claimed that under the principle of pari delicto,  Bandrang had no right
JARDELEZA, J.:
to seek remedy with the court as she was guilty herself in leasing the
market stalls. Mayor Dickson insisted that he acted in accordance with
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1under Rule 45 of the Revised law by referring the matter to the Sanggunian  for appropriate action.
Rules of Court from the Decision 2 dated December 16, 2008 of the He also argued that Bandrang had no cause of action against him and
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 103922 and its that she was not a real-party-in-interest. He likewise asserted that the
Resolution3 dated June 19, 2009. subject of the mandamus  was not proper as it entailed an act which
was purely discretionary on his part. 15
Facts
In his Pre-Trial Brief, 16 Mayor Dickson elaborated that Bandrang had
no cause of action because the stalls were on a BOT scheme covered
In July 2005, Aniza Bandrang (Bandrang) sent two letter-
by an ordinance. During the hearing, Mayor Dickson presented a copy
complaints4 to then Municipal Mayor Santiago O. Dickson (Mayor

7
of the resolution of the Sanggunian  indicating that there was a a BOT agreement between petitioners and the Municipal Government,
directive to all stall owners in the public market of Solano, Nueva petitioners had already been compensated for it, as evidenced by
Vizcaya to build their own stalls after a fire gutted the public market. 17 certifications of the Municipal Government dated August 28, 2006 and
September 1 7, 2006. 26 As regards the non-payment of stall rentals,
the RTC ruled that petitioners deemed to have admitted the allegation
On the other hand, petitioners denied that they were the lessees of
when they exhibited to the court the receipt of payment of rentals in
Stalls 77 A and B and 78 A and B. They clarified that Clarita Laygo
arrears.27
(Clarita), their mother, was the lessee of the stalls by virtue of a BOT
scheme of the Municipality. At the time they entered into a contract of
lease with Bandrang, it was agreed that the contract was subject to The RTC, thus, concluded that petitioners clearly violated the terms
the consent of the other heirs of Clarita. The consent, however, was and conditions of the lease contract, which gave rise to the enactment
never given; hence, there was no subleasing to speak of. Even on the of Resolution No. 183-2004.1âwphi1 Since Mayor Dickson failed in his
assumption that there was, petitioners maintained that the prohibition duty to enforce the resolution and delayed its implementation without
on subleasing would not apply because the contract between the valid reason, man amus  is a proper remedy. 28
Municipality and Clarita was one under a BOT scheme. Resolution No.
183-2004 only covered stall holders who violated their lease contracts
Petitioners appealed to the CA, while then incumbent Mayor Dacayo
with the Municipal Government. Since their contract with the Municipal
filed a manifestation expressing his willingness to implement
Government was not a lease contract but a BOT agreement,
Resolutions No. 183-2004 and 135-2007.29
Resolution No. 183-2004 would neither apply to them, nor be enforced
against them. 18 Further, even granting arguendo that the prohibition
would apply, petitioners claimed that there was no more ground for Court of Appeals Ruling
the revocation of the lease because the subleasing claimed by
Bandrang had ended and the subsequent receipt by the Municipality of On December 16, 2008, the CA rendered the now assailed
payments ratified the contract with petitioners. 19 Decision30 dismissing the appeal and sustaining the resolution of the
RTC.
Meanwhile, on July 23, 2007, the RTC issued an Order directing the
substitution of then incumbent mayor Hon. Philip A. Dacayo (Mayor The CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that the contract between
Dacayo) as respondent in place of Mayor Dickson.20 petitioners and the Municipal Government is a lease contract and, thus,
Resolution No. 183-2004 applies to them.31
Bandrang filed a Motion for Summary Judgment21 on January 8, 2008
arguing that no genuine factual issues existed to necessitate trial. On the issue of whether mandamus  is proper, the CA also affirmed the
Bandrang reiterated the violation of petitioners against subletting in ruling of the RTC stating that although mandamus  is properly availed
their lease contracts with the Municipal Government. She stated that of to compel a ministerial duty, it is also available to compel action in
the will of the Sanggunian  to enforce the policy against subleasing was matters involving judgment and discretion but not to direct an action
bolstered by the fact that it passed two more resolutions, Resolution in a particular way, to wit:
No. 017-2006 and Resolution No. 135-2007, reiterating the
implementation of Resolution No. 183-2004.22 She also alleged for the
first time that after the filing of the case, another violation besides the x x x However, mandamus is available to compel action, when
prohibition on subletting surfaced: the nonpayment of stall rental fees. refused, in matters involving judgment
She pointed out that petitioners admitted this violation when they
exhibited during a hearing the receipt of payment of rentals in arrears and discretion, though not to direct the exercise of judgment or
for over 17 months. Bandrang quoted Section 7B.06 (a) of Municipal discretion in a particular way or the retraction or reversal of an action
Ordinance No. 164, Series of 1994, which stated that failure to pay the already taken in the exercise of either.
rental fee for three consecutive months shall cause automatic
cancellation of the contract of lease of space or stall. She then
concluded that this section left Mayor Dickson with no choice but to In the case at bar, the Sangguniang Bayan  of Solano
comply.23 ("Sanggunian") delegated to Mayor Dickson and subsequently to
incumbent Mayor Dacayo, the power tocancel the lease contracts
of those market stallholderswho violated their contracts with
RTC Ruling the Municipality. Inferred from this power is the power of the Mayor
to determine who among the market stallholders violated their lease
In its Resolution dated January 28, 2008, the RTC granted the contracts with the Municipality. Such power connotes an exercise of
petition.1âwphi1 Thus: discretion.

"WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, let a Writ of Mandamus to When then Mayor Dickson refused to exercise this discretion, even
issue ordering the Municipal Mayor of Solano to implement Nos. 9 and after the Sanggunian  assured him that the subject resolution
11 of the provisions of the Contract of lease of stall between the empowered him to have the lease contracts of the Laygos cancelled,
Municipal Government of Solano and private respondents Rodolfo and said act of refusal became proper subject of mandamus, as it involved
Willie Laygo. a duty expected of him to be performed. So with the incumbent
Mayor, the Hon. Philip Dacayo, as was ordered by the Court below. 32
The Municipal Mayor of Solano, Hon. Philip A. Dacayo, is hereby
ordered as it is his duty to enforce [Sangguniang Bayan]  Resolution Willie Laygo filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated January 20, 2009,
Nos. 183-2004 and [135]-2007 immediately and without further delay. which was denied by the CA in a Resolution33 dated June 19, 2009.

SO ORDERED."24 Hence, this petition, which raised the following questions:

The RTC held that the contract between petitioners and the Municipal 1.May the Sangguniang Bayan  Resolution No. 183-2004 be applied
Government was a lease contract, as evidenced by a certification against petitioners despite the absence of a contract of lease between
signed by Mayor Epifanio LD. Galima (Mayor Galima) dated September them and the Municipal Government of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya?
17, 2006.25 The RTC brushed aside the non-presentation of the written
contract of lease, noting that public policy and public interest must 2. May the Sangguniang Bayan  Resolution No. 183-2004 be enforced
prevail. The RTC also held that even on the assumption that there was by anybody else, except Mayor Dickson?

8
Petitioners reiterate their position that Resolution No. 183-2004 cannot Mandamus, however, is not
be enforced against them because there was no contract of lease proper.
between them and the Municipal Government and therefore, there
cannot be any occasion for petitioner to violate any provision.
Mandamus  is a command issuing from a court of competent
jurisdiction, in the name of the state or the sovereign, directed to
Moreover, petitioners argue that the resolution can only be enforced some inferior court, tribunal, or board, or to some corporation or
by Mayor Dickson because it specified Mayor Dickson and no other. person requiring the performance of a particular duty therein specified,
Consequently, since Mayor Dickson is no longer in office, he cannot which duty results from the official station of the party to whom the
now enforce Resolution No. 183-2004.34 writ is directed or from operation of law. 41 As a rule, mandamus will
not lie in the absence of any of the following grounds: [a] that the
court, officer, board, or person against whom the action is taken
The Municipal Government, through the Provincial Legal Officer of
unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the law
Nueva Vizcaya, stated in its Comment35 that the policy against
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from office, trust, or station; or
subleasing was bolstered by the enactment of the Sanggunian  of
[b] that such court, officer, board, or person bas unlawfully excluded
another resolution, Resolution No. 135-2007, with the same purpose,
petitioner/relator from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to
but authorizing then Mayor Dacayo to implement the No. 9 and No. 11
which he is entitled.42 Neither will the extraordinary remedy
provisions. in the contract of lease.36
of mandamus lie to compel the performance of duties that are
discretionary in nature.43 In Roble Arrastre, Inc. v. Villaflor,44we
Our Ruling explained the difference between the exercise of ministerial and
discretionary powers, to wit:
We grant the petition.
"Discretion," when applied to public functionaries, means a power or
There is preponderant evidence right conferred upon them by law or
that the contract between
petitioners and the Municipal acting officially, under certain circumstances, uncontrolled by the
Government is one of lease. judgment or conscience of others. A purely ministerial act or duty in
contradiction to a discretional act is one which an officer or tribunal
The type of contract existing between petitioners and the Municipal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
Government is disputed. The Municipal Government asserts that it is obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the
one of lease, while petitioners insist that it is a BOT agreement. Both exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the
parties, however, failed to present the contracts which they purport to act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him
have. It is likewise uncertain whether the contract would fall under the the right to decide how or when the duty shall be performed, such
coverage of the Statute of Frauds and would, thus, be only proven duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only
through written evidence. In spite of these, we find that the Municipal when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of official
Government was able to prove its claim, through secondary evidence, discretion or judgment.45 (Citation omitted.)
that its contract with petitioners was one of lease.
Applying the foregoing distinction, we find that the Petition
We have no reason to doubt the certifications of the former mayor of for Mandamus  must fail because the acts sought to be done are
Solano, Mayor Galima, and the Municipal Planning and Development discretionary in nature.
Office (MPD0)37 which show that the contract of the Municipal
Government with petitioners' mother, Clarita, was converted into a The petition sought an order to direct Mayor Dickson to cancel the
BOT agreement for a time in 1992 due to the fire that razed the public lease contract of petitioners with the Municipal Government and to
market. These certifications were presented and offered in evidence by lease the vacated market stalls to interested persons. We have already
petitioners themselves. They prove that Clarita was allowed to settled in the early case of Aprueba v. Ganzon46that the privilege of
construct her stalls that were destroyed using her own funds, and with operating a market stall under license is always subject to the police
the payment of the lease rentals being suspended until she recovers power of the city government and may be refused or granted for
the cost she spent on the construction. The construction was, in fact, reasons of puplic policy and sound public administration. 47 Being a
supervised by the MPDO for a period of three months. The stalls were delegated police power falling under the general welfare clause of
eventually constructed completely and awarded to Clarita. She Section 16 of the Local Government Code, the grant or revocation of
thereafter reoccupied the stalls under a lease contract with the the privilege is, therefore, discretionary in nature.48
Municipal Government. In fact, in his Notice dated August 21, 2007,
the Municipal Treasurer of Solano reminded petitioners of their
Moreover, Resolution No. 183-2004, or even its subsequent equivalent,
delinquent stall rentals from May 2006 to July 2007. 38 As correctly
Resolution No. 135-2007, merely authorizes the mayor "to enforce the
posited by the Municipal Government, if the stalls were under a BOT
No. 11 provision of the contract of lease of market stalls between the
scheme, the Municipal Treasurer could not have assessed petitioners
Municipal Government and the stallholders at the Solano [P]ublic
of any delinquency.39
Market who violated the No. 9 provision of said contract x x x." 49 Item
No. 11 provides that "[i]f any back rental remains unpaid for more
Also, petitioners themselves raised, for the sake of argument, that than [15] days or if any violation be made of any of the stipulations of
even if the contract may be conceded as one of lease, the municipality this lease by the LESSEE, the LESSOR may declare this lease
is nonetheless estopped from canceling the lease contract because it terminated and, thereafter, reenter the leased premises and repossess
subsequently accepted payment of rentals until the time of the filing of the same, and expel the LESSEE or others claiming under him/her
the case.40 from the leased premises."50 Clearly, Item No. 11 does not give the
mayor a mandate to motu propio  or automatically terminate or cancel
In the same vein, the Sangguniang Bayan  Resolution No. 183-2004, the lease with a lessee who is delinquent in the payment of rentals or
which quoted Items No. 9 and 11 of the lease contract on the absolute who is in violation of any of the provisions of the contract. This is
prohibition against subleasing and the possible termination of the apparent from the permissive word "may" used in the provision. It
contract in view of back rentals or any violation of the stipulations in does not specifically enjoin the mayor to cancel the lease as a matter
the contract, is presumed to have been regularly issued. It deserves of "duty." Where the words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from
weight and our respect, absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without
on the part of the members of the Sanggunian. attempted interpretation.51

9
We do not discount, however, our ruling in previous cases where we would enable us to say that he is entitled to the writ as a matter of
cited exceptions to the rule that only a ministerial duty can be right. His interest is only that a citizen at largecoupled  with the fact
compelled by a writ of mandamus.  In Republic v. Capulong,  52 we held that in his capacity a[ s] president of the Association of Engineers it is
that as a general rule, a writ of mandamus  will not issue to control or his duty to safeguard the interests of the members of his
review the exercise of discretion of a public officer since it is his association."61 (Italics in the original, citation omitted.)
judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court. 53 Courts will
not interfere to modify, control or inquire into the exercise of this
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition
discretion unless it be alleged and proven that there has been an
is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 16, 2008 and Resolution
abuse or an excess of authority on the part of the officer concerned. 54
dated June 19, 2009of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103922,
and the Resolutiondated January 28, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court
In Angchango, Jr. v. Ombudsman,  55 we also held that in the of Bayombong, NuevaVizcaya are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
performance of an official duty or act involving discretion, the Petition for Mandamusagainst Mayor Santiago O. Dickson
corresponding official can only be directed by mandamus  to act, but is DISMISSED.
not to act one way or the other. However, this rule admits of
exceptions such as in cases where there is gross abuse of discretion,
SO ORDERED.
manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority.56 These exceptions
do not apply in this case.
G.R. No. 211362               February 24, 2015
Firstly, while Mayor Dickson may be compelled to act on the directive
provided in Resolution No. 135-2007, he may not be compelled to do FIRST CLASS CADET ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA of the Philippine
so in a certain way, as what was prayed for by Bandrang in seeking Military Academy, represented by his father RENATO P.
the cancellation of the contract and to re-lease the vacated market CUDIA, who also acts on his own behalf, and BERTENI
stalls to interested persons. It was enough that Mayor Dickson be CATALUNA CAUSING, Petitioners,
reminded of his authority to cancel the contract under Item No. 11, vs.
but whether or not his decision would be for or against Bandrang THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY
would be for Mayor Dickson alone to decide. Not even the Court can ACADEMY (PMA), THE HONOR COMMITTEE (HC) OF 2014 OF
substitute its own judgment over what he had chosen. THE PMA and HC MEMBERS, and the CADET REVIEW AND
APPEALS BOARD (CRAB), Respondents.
As it was, Mayor Dickson did act on the matter before him. He
exercised his discretion by choosing not to cancel the contract on the x-----------------------x
ground of pari delicto,  explaining that Bandrang, as the sub-lessee
herself, was in violation of the same policy on subleasing. The FILIPINA P. CUDIA, in behalf of CADET FIRST CLASS ALDRIN
complaint does not allege that in deciding this way, Mayor Dickson JEFF P. CUDIA, and on her own behalf, Petitioner-Intervenor.
committed grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable
excess of authority. Neither did Bandrang present proof that Mayor
Dickson acted arbitrarily, wantonly, fraudulently, and against the DECISION
interest of the public when he chose not to cancel the lease contract of
petitioners. 57 PERALTA, J.:

Further, aside from the imperative duty of the respondent in a petition The true test of a cadet's character as a leader rests on his personal
for mandamus  to perform that which is demanded of him, it is commitment to uphold what is morally and ethically righteous at the
essential that, on the one hand, the person petitioning for it has a most critical and trying times, and at the most challenging
clear legal right to the claim that is sought.58 To be given due course, a circumstances. When a cadet must face a dilemma between what is
petition for mandamus must have been instituted by a party aggrieved true and right as against his security, well-being, pleasures and
by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person comfort, or dignity, what is at stake is his honor and those that
which unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal [define] his values. A man of an honorable character does not think
right. The petitioner in every case must therefore be an aggrieved twice and chooses the fore. This is the essence of and. the Spirit of the
party, in the sense that he possesses a clear right to be enforced and a Honor Code - it is championing truth and righteousness even if it may
direct interest in the duty or act to be performed. The Court will mean the surrender of one's basic rights and privileges.1
exercise its power of judicial review only if the case is brought before it
by a party who has the legal standing to raise the constitutional or
legal question. "Legal standing" means a personal and substantial The Procedural Antecedents
interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain
direct injury as a result of the government act that is being Six days prior to the March 16, 2014 graduation ceremonies of the
challenged. 59 Does Bandrang have such legal standing to institute the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), petitioners Renato P. Cudia, acting
petition? We answer in the negative. for himself and in behalf of his son, Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P.
Cudia (Cadet JCL Cudia), and Berteni Catalufta Causing filed this
Following our ruling in the early case of Almario v. City Mayor, et petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for
al.,  60 where we ruled that the petitioner seeking to compel the city extremely urgent temporary restraining order (TRO).2
mayor toeject occupants of stalls in the public market had no locus
standi  to file thepetition for mandamus,  we also arrive here with the In a Resolution dated March 1 7, 2014, the Court denied the prayer for
same conclusion.Similarly with Almario,  Bandrang is not an applicant TRO and instead, required respondents to file their comment on the
for any stall in thepublic market which is the subject of the petition.3
controversy. She is neither arepresentative of any such applicant, stall
holder, or any association of persons who are deprived of their right to
occupy a stall in said market. As we have deduced in Almario: On March 25, 2014, Filipina P. Cudia, acting for herself and in behalf of
her son Cadet 1 CL Cudia, filed a motion for leave to intervene,
attaching thereto the petition-in-intervention.4 Per Resolution dated
x x x Verily, he is not the real party in interest who has the capacity, March 31, 2014, the Court granted the motion and resolved to await
right or personality to institute the present action. As this Court has respondents' comment on the petition.5
well said in an analogous case, "the petitioner does not have any
special or individual interest in the subject matter of the action which

10
A manifestation was then filed by petitioners on April 3, 2014, scheduled. When he expressed his intention to appeal and seek
recommending the admission of the petition-in-intervention and reconsideration of the punishment, he was · advised to put the request
adopting it as an integral part of their petition.6 On May 20, 2014, in writing. Hence, that same day, Cadet 1 CL Cudia addressed his
petitioner-intervenor filed a manifestation with motion for leave to Request for Reconsideration of Meted Punishment to Maj. Benjamin L.
admit the Final Investigation Report of the Commission on Human Leander, Senior Tactical Officer (STO), asserting:
Rights (CHR) dated April 25, 2014.7 The Report8 was relative to CHR-
CAR Case No. 2014-0029 filed by the spouses Renato and Filipina
I strongly believe that I am not in control of the circumstances, our 4th
Cudia (Spouses Cudia), for themselves and in behalf of their son,
period class ended 1500H and our 5th period class, which is ENG412,
against the PMA Honor Committee (HC) members and Major Vladimir
started 1500H also. Immediately after 4t period class, I went to my
P. Gracilla (Maj. Gracilla)9 for violation of Cadet lCL Cudia's rights to
next class without any intention of being late Sir.20
due process, education, and privacy of communication. Subsequently,
on June 3, 2014, petitioners filed a motion for leave to adopt the
submission of the CHR Report.10 The manifestation was granted and A day after, Maj. Leander instructed Maj. Hindang to give his
the motion was noted by the Court in its Resolution dated July 7, comments on the request of Cadet 1 CL Cudia and to indicate if there
2014. were other cadets belonging to the same section who were also late.

After filing three motions for extension of time, 11 respondents filed On December 28, 2013, Maj. Hindang submitted his reply to Maj.
their Consolidated Comment12 on June 19, 2014. In a motion, Leander pointing out that, based on his investigation, the 4th period
petitioner-intervenor filed a Reply, which was later adopted by class was not dismissed late. As a result, Maj. Leander sustained the
petitioners.13 Submitted as Annex "A" of the Reply was a copy of the penalty imposed. Petitioners alleged that Cadet 1 CL Cudia came to
CHR Resolution dated May 22, 2014 regarding CHR-CAR Case No. know of the denial of his request only on January 24, 2014 upon
2014-0029.14 We noted and granted the same on August 11, 2014 and inquiry with Maj. Leander.
October 13, 2014.
Several days passed, and on January 7, 2014, Cadet lCL Cudia was
Petitioner-intervenor twice filed a manifestation with motion to submit informed that Maj. Hindang reported him to the HC21 for violation of
the case for early resolution,15 which the Court noted in a Resolution the Honor Code. The Honor Report stated:
dated August 11, 2014 and October 3, 2014.16
Lying that is giving statement that perverts the truth in his written
The Facts appeal, stating that his 4th period class ended at l 500H that made him
late in the succeeding class.22
Cadet 1 CL Cudia was a member of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the
PMA, the country's premiere military academy located at Fort Gregorio Upon asking the HC Chairman, Cadet 1 CL Mike Anthony P. Mogol
del Pilar in Baguio City. He belonged to the "A" Company and was the (Cadet 1 CL Mogol), as to what Maj. Hindang meant in his Report,
Deputy Baron of his class. As claimed by petitioners and petitioner- Cadet lCL Cudia learned that it was based on Maj. Hindang's
intervenor (hereinafter collectively called "petitioners," unless conversations with their instructors and classmates as well as his
otherwise indicated), he was supposed to graduate with honors as the statement in the request for reconsideration to Maj. Leander. He then
class salutatorian, receive the Philippine Navy Saber as the top Navy verbally applied for and was granted an extension of time to answer
cadet graduate, and be commissioned as an ensign of the Philippine the charge against him because Dr. Costales, who could shed light on
Navy. the matter, was on emergency leave.

On November 14, 2013, the combined classes of the Navy and Air On January 13, 2014, Dr. Costales sent text messages to Cadet lCL
Force 1 CL cadets had a lesson examination (LE) on Operations Cudia, conveying:
Research (OR432) under Dr. Maria Monica C. Costales (Dr. Costales) at
the PMAFI Room. Per published schedule from the Headquarters Gud pm cdt cudia. Mam belandres gave me bkground na. She told me
Academic Group, the 4th period class in OR432 was from 1 :30-3:00 its a report dated november. When maj hindang ask me, no time
p.m. (1330H-1500H), while the 5th period class in ENG412 was from referens. (04:25:11 P.M.)
3:05-4:05 p.m. (1505H-1605H).

All the while I thot he was refering to dismisal during last day last
Five days after, Professor Juanita Berong (Prof. Berong) of the 5th december. Whc i told, i wud presume they wil finish early bee its grp
period class issued a Delinquency Report (DR) against Cadet 1 CL work. (04:29:21 P.M.)23
Cudia because he was "[/]ate for two (2) minutes in his Eng 412 class
x x x. "17 Cadets 1 CL Narciso, Arcangel, Miranda, Pontillas, Diaz, Otila,
and Dela Cruz were also reported late for five minutes.18 The next day, Cadets lCL Cudia and Arcangel approached Dr. Costales,
who reaffirmed that she and Maj. Hindang were not in the same time
reference when the latter asked her.
On December 4, 2013, the DRs reached the Department of Tactical
Officers. They were logged and transmitted to the Company Tactical
Officers ( CTO) for explanation of the concerned cadets. Two days Later, Cadet 1 CL Cudia submitted his letter of explanation on the
later, Cadet lCL Cudia received his DR. Honor Report. He averred:

In his Explanation of Report dated December 8, 2013, Cadet lCL Cudia Sir, We had an LE that day (14 November 2013) in OR432 class. When
reasoned out that: "I came directly from OR432 Class. We were the first bell rang (1455), I stood up, reviewed my paper and
dismissed a bit late by our instructor Sir."19 submitted it to my instructor, Ms. Costales. After which, I and Cadet lcl
Arcangel asked for some query with regards (sic) to the deductions of
our previous LE. Our instructor gladly answered our question. She then
On December 19, 2013, Major Rommel Dennis Hindang (Maj. told me that she will give the copy of our section grade, so I waited at
Hindang), the CTO of Cadet 1 CL Cudia, meted out to him the penalty the hallway outside the ACAD5 office, and then she came out of the
of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours. Immediately, Cadet lCL Cudia room and gave me a copy of the grades. Cadet Arcangel, Cadet
clarified with Maj. Hindang his alleged violation. The latter told him Narciso and I immediately went to our 5ti period class which is
that the basis of the punishment was the result of his conversation ENG412.
with Dr. Costales, who responded that she never dismissed her class
late, and the protocol to dismiss the class 10-15 minutes earlier than

11
With these statements, I would like to clarify the following: 7. Cadet lcl DIAZ "D" Co can also stand as a
witness that I waited for Ms. Costales. 24
1. How could this be lying?
On January 15, 2014, the HC constituted a team to conduct a
preliminary investigation on the reported honor violation of Cadet 1 CL
2. What is wrong with the side of Maj. Hindang
Cudia. The Foxtrot Company was designated as the investigating team
(why did he come up to that honor report)?
and was composed of Cadet 1 CL Hasigan as Presiding Officer, and
Cadets 1 CL Mogol, lCL Raguindin, 2CL Gumilab, 2CL Saldua, 3CL
3. What are his assumptions? Espejo, and 3CL Poncardas as members.25 Soon after, the team
submitted its Preliminary Investigation Report recommending that the
I appeal, in the name of clarity, fairness and truth[,] that my case be case be formalized.
reopened and carefully reviewed for I did not violate the honor
code/system, I can answer NO to both questions (Did I intend to The formal investigation against Cadet 1 CL Cu di a then ensued. The
deceive? Did I intend to take undue advantage?) and for the following Presiding Officer was Cadet 1 CL Rhona K. Salvacion, while the nine
reasons: (9) voting members were Cadets lCL Jairus 0. Fantin, lCL Bryan Sonny
S. Arlegui, 1 CL Kim Adrian R. Martal, 1 CL J eanelyn P. Cabrido, 1 CL
1. The honor report of Maj. Hindang was already ShuAydan G. Ayada, 1 CL Dalton John G. Lagura, 2CL Renato A.
settled and finalized given the fact that no face-to- Carifio, Jr., 2CL Arwi C. Martinez, and 2CL Niko Angelo C.
face personal conversation with Ms. Costales was Tarayao.26 Acting as recorders tasked to document the entire
conducted to clarify what and when exactly was proceedings were 4CL Jennifer A. Cuarteron and 3CL Leoncio Nico A.
the issue at hand. de Jesus 11.27 Those who observed the trial were Cadets 1 CL Balmeo,
Dag-uman, Hasigan, Raguindin, Paulino, Arcangel, and Narciso; Cadets
2CL Jocson and Saldua, Jr.; and Cadet 3CL Umaguing.28
2. Statements of the respondents support my
explanation.
The first formal hearing started late evening of January 20, 2014 and
lasted until early morning the next day. Cadet lCL Cudia was informed
3. My explanation to my appeal to my DR of the charge against him, as to which he pleaded "Not Guilty." Among
(Request for reconsideration of meted those who testified were Cadet 1 CL Cudia, Maj. Hindang, and Cadets
punishment) further supports my explanation in 1 CL Arcangel and Narciso. On the second night of the hearing held on
my delinquency report. January 21, 2014, Cadet 1 CL Cudia again appeared and was called to
the witness stand along with Cadets Brit and Barrawed. Dr. Costales
4. My understanding of the duration of the also testified under oath via phone on a loudspeaker. Deliberation
"CLASS" covers not just a lecture in a typical among the HC voting members followed. After that, the ballot sheets
classroom instruction but includes every were distributed. The members cast their votes through secret
transaction and communication a teacher does balloting and submitted their accomplished ballot sheets together with
with her students, especially that in our case some their written justification. The result was 8-1 in favor of a guilty
cadets asked for queries, and I am given verdict. Cadet lCL Dalton John G. Lagura (Cadet lCL Lagura) was the
instruction by which (sic) were directly related to lone dissenter. Allegedly, upon the order ofHC Chairman Cadet 1 CL
our CLASS. Her transaction and communication Mogol, the Presiding Officer and voting members went inside a
with our other classmates may have already chamber adjoining the court room for further deliberation. After
ended but ours extended for a little bit. several minutes, they went out and the Presiding Officer announced
the 9-0 guilty verdict. Cadet 1 CL Cudia, who already served nine (9)
touring hours, was then informed of the unanimous votes finding him
I agree and consider that because Cadet guilty of violating the Honor Code. He was immediately placed in the
CUDIA is under my instruction to wait, PMA Holding Center until the resolution of his appeal.
and the other cadets still have business
with me, it is reasonable enough for him
to say that "Our class was dismissed a On January 24, 2014, Cadet ICL Cudia filed a written appeal addressed
bit late" (dealing with matter of seconds to the HC Chairman, the full text of which stated:
or a minute particularly 45 seconds to 1
minute and 30 seconds) WRITTEN APPEAL

And with concern to (sic) OR432 class, I 14 NOVEMBER 2013

can say it ended on time (1500H).
This is when I was reported for "Late for two (2) minutes in Eng412
(signed) class", my explanation on this delinquency report when I received it, is
M COSTALES that "Our class was dismissed a (little) bit late and I came directly from
4th period class ... etc". Knowing the fact that in my delinquency
w/ attached certification report, it is stated that ENG412 classes started 1500H and I am late
for two minutes, it is logical enough for I (sic) to interpret it as "I came
1502H during that class". This is the explanation that came into my
5. I was transparent and honest in explaining the mind that time. (I just cannot recall the exact words I used in
2-minute delay and did not attempt to conceal explaining that delinquency report, but what I want to say is that I
anything that happened or I did. have no intention to be late). In my statements, I convey my message
as "since I was not the only one left in that class, and the instructor is
6. Furthermore, CPT DULA WAN PA, the Tactical with us, I used the term "CLASS", I used the word "DISMISSED"
Officer of Hawk Company[,] and I had a because I was under instruction (to wait for her to give the section
conversation with regards (sic) to the same matter grade) by the instructor, Ms. Costales. The other cadets (lCL
for which he can give important points of my case. MIRANDA, lCL ARCANGEL) still have queries and business with her that
made me decide to use the word "CLASS", while the others who don't
have queries and business with her (ex: lCL NARCISO and 1 CL DIAZ)
were also around.

12
Note: c. That UE papers were already checked but not
yet recorded due to (sic) other cadets have not
taken the UE. Cadets were allowed to verify scores
The four named cadets were also reported late.
but not to look at the papers.

Reference: Para 171. 0. (Leaving the Classroom Prior to Dismissal

d. Last 23 January 2014, Captain Dulawan clarified
Time)(Sec XVII, CCAFPR s2008)
if indeed Cadet NARCISO and ARCANGEL verified
grades. The two cadets said that they verified
It is stated in this reference that "Cadets shall not linger in the place of something with me after the OR432 class and they
instruction after the section has been dismissed. EXCEPT when told or were with Cadet CUD IA. That the statements of
allowed to do so by the instructor or by any competent authority for the three (3) cadets are all the same and
official purposes. " consistent, thus[,] I honor that as true.

The instruction by Ms. Costales was given to me before the two bells 2. As to the aspect of dismissing late, I could not really
rang (indicating the end of class hour, 1500H). I waited for her for account for the specific time that I dismissed the class. To
about 45 seconds to 1 minute and 30 seconds, that made me to this date, I [cannot] really recall an account that is more
decide to write "a little bit late" in my explanation. Truly, the class than two (2) months earlier. According to my records, there
ENDED 1500H but due to official purpose (instruction by Ms. Costales was a lecture followed by an LE during (sic) on 14 November
to wait) and the conflict in academic schedule (to which I am not in 2013. To determine the time of my dismissal, maybe it can
control of the circumstances, 4th PD class 1330H-1500H and 5th PD be verified with the other members of class I was handling
class 1500H-1 600H), and since Ms. Costales, my other classmates, on that said date.30
and I were there, I used the word "CLASS".
Respondents contend that the HC denied the appeal the same day,
19 December 2013 January · 24, as it found no reason to conduct a re-trial based on the
arguments and evidence presented.31 Petitioners, however, claim that
I was informed that my delinquency report was awarded, 11 Demerits the written appeal was not acted upon until the filing of the petition-in-
and 13 Touring hours. Not because I don't want to serve punishment, intervention.32
but because I know I did nothing wrong, I obeyed instruction, and
believing that my reason is justifiable and valid, that is why I From January 25 to February 7, 2014, respondents allege that the
approached our tactical officer, MAJ HINDANG PAF, to clarify and ask Headquarters Tactics Group (HTG) conducted an informal review to
why it was awarded that day. check the findings of the HC. During the course of the investigation,
Prof. Berong was said to have confirmed with the Officer-in-Charge of
In our conversation, he said that he had a phone call to my instructor the HC that classes started as scheduled (i.e., 3:05 p.m. or 1505H),
and he even added that they have a protocol to dismiss the class, 15 and that Cadet lCL Barrawed, the acting class marcher of ENG412,
minutes or 10 minutes before 1500H. I explained: verified before the Commandant, Assistant Commandant, and STO that
the class started not earlier than scheduled.

Sir, I strongly believe that I am not in control of the circumstances, our

4th period class ended 1500H and our 5th period class, which is Meantime, on February 4, 2014, the OIC of the HC forwarded the
ENG412, started 1500H also. Immediately after 4th period class, I Formal Investigation Report to the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) for
went to my next class without any intention of being late Sir. review. The next day, the SJA found the report to be legally in order.

These statements are supplementary to my explanation in my On February 8, 2014, Colonel Rozzano D. Briguez (Col. Briguez), the
delinquency report, in here, I specified the conflict in the schedule and Commandant of Cadets, affirmed the HC findings and recommended to
again, I have no intention to be late. After explaining it further with Vice Admiral Edgar Abogado, then PMA Superintendent, the separation
these statements, my tactical officer said that since I was reported in a from the PMA of Cadet lCL Cudia for violation of the First Tenet of the
written form, I should make an appeal in a written form. Thinking that Honor Code (Lying, pursuant to Sec. VII.12.b of the CCAFPR S-2008).
he already understood what I want to say, I immediately made an On the same date, Special Orders No. 26 was issued by the PMA
appeal that day stating the words that I used in having conversation Headquarters placing Cadet 1 CL Cudia on indefinite leave of absence
with him.29 without pay and allowances effective February 10, 2014 pending
approval of his separation by the AFPGHQ, barring him from future
appointment and/or admission as cadet, and not permitting him to
Attached to the written appeal was a Certification dated January 24, qualify for any entrance requirements to the PMA. 33
2014, wherein Dr. Costales attested:
Two days later, Vice Admiral Abogado approved the recommendation
1. That Cadet MIRANDA, ARCANGEL, [and] NARCISO was to dismiss Cadet 1 CL Cudia.
(sic) with Cadet CUDIA in making query about their latest
grades in OR432 and/or results of UEl outside the ACADS
office. The following facts may explain their queries on 14 On February 13, 2014, Cadet lCL Cudia submitted a letter to the Office
November 2013: of the Commandant of Cadets requesting for reinstatement by the PMA
of his status as a cadet.34

a. That I held my class in the PMAFI room instead

of room 104. Four days passed, Annavee P. Cudia (Annavee ), the sister of Cadet 1
CL Cudia, posted his plight in her Face book account. The day after,
the Spouses Cudia gave a letter to Major General Oscar Lopez (Maj.
b. That OR432 releases grades every Wednesday Gen. Lopez), the new PMA Superintendent, asking to recognize the 8-1
and cadets are informed during Thursday, either voting of the HC.35 Copies of which were furnished to the AFP Chief of
in class or posted grades in the bulletin board Staff and other concerned military officials. Subsequently, Maj. Gen.
(grades released was [sic J based on the previous Lopez was directed to review Cadet lCL Cudia's case. The latter, in
LEs: latest LE before UE was Decision Trees). turn, referred the matter to the Cadet Review and Appeals Board
(CRAB).

13
On February 19, 2014, Cadet lCL Cudia made his personal appeal letter proceedings.45 Cadet 1CL Cudia, through PAO, then filed an Appeal
to Maj. Gen. Lopez. On even date, the AFP Chief of Staff ordered a Memorandum46 before the CRAB.
reinvestigation following the viral Facebook post of Annavee
demanding the intervention of the military leadership.
On March 12, 2014, Spouses Cudia wrote a letter to President Benigno
Simeon C. Aquino III (Pres. Aquino), who is the Commander-in-Chief
Petitioners claim that, on February 21, 2014, Special Order No. 1 was of the AFP, attaching thereto the Appeal Memorandum. 47 On the same
issued directing all PMA cadets to ostracize Cadet 1 CL Cudia by not day, Special Orders No. 48 was issued by the PMA constituting a Fact-
talking to him and by separating him from all activities/functions of the Finding Board/Investigation Body composed of the CRAB members and
cadets. It is said that any violation shall be a "Class 1" offense PMA senior officers to conduct a deliberate investigation pertaining to
entailing 45 demerits, 90 hours touring, and 90 hours confinement. Cadet 1CL Cudia's Appeal Memorandum.48 The focus of the inquiry was
Cadet 1 CL Cudia was not given a copy of the order and learned about not just to find out whether the appeal has merit or may be considered
it only from the media.36 According to an alleged news report, PMA but also to investigate possible involvement of other cadets and
Spokesperson Major Agnes Lynette Flores (Maj. Flores) confirmed the members of the command related to the incident and to establish
HC order to ostracize Cadet 1 CL Cudia. Among his offenses were: specific violation of policy or regulations that had been violated by
breach of confidentiality by putting documents in the social media, other cadets and members of the HC.49
violation of the PMA Honor Code, lack of initiative to resign, and
smearing the name of the PMA.37
On March 13, 2014, the Cudia family and the Chief Public Attorney had
a dialogue with Maj. Gen. Lopez. On March 14, 2014, the CHR-CAR
On February 24, 2014, Cadet 1CL Cudia requested the CRAB for came out with its preliminary findings, which recommended the
additional time, until March 4, 2014, to file an appeal on the ground following:
that his intended witnesses are in on-the-job training ( OJT).38 As
additional evidence to support his appeal, he also requested for copies
a. For the PMA and the Honor Committee to respect and
of the Minutes of the HC proceedings, relevant documents pertaining
uphold the 8 Guilty - 1 Not guilty vote;
to the case, and video footages and recordings of the HC hearings.

b. For the PMA and the Honor Committee to officially

The next day, Cadet 1 CL Cudia and his family engaged the services of
pronounce Cdt Cudia as Not Guilty of the charge filed
the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) in Baguio City.
against him before the Honor Committee;

The CRAB conducted a review of the case based on the following: (a)
c. For the PMA to restore Cadet Cudia's rights and
letter of appeal of the Spouses Cudia dated February 18, 2014; (b)
entitlements as a full-fledge graduating cadet and allow him
directive from the AFP-GHQ to reinvestigate the case; and ( c)
to graduate on Sunday, 16 March 2014;
guidance from Maj. Gen. Lopez.

d. For the PMA to fully cooperate with the CHR in the

On February 26, 2014, Brigadier General Andre M. Costales, Jr. (Brig.
investigation of Cudia's Case.50
Gen. Costales, Jr.), the CRAB Chairman, informed Cadet lCL Cudia
that, pending approval of the latter's request for extension, the CRAB
would continue to review the case and submit its recommendations On March 15, 2014, Cadet 1CL Cudia and his family had a meeting
based on whatever evidence and testimonies received, and that it with Pres. Aquino and Department of National Defense (DND)
could not favorably consider his request for copies of the HC minutes, Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin. The President recommended that they
relevant documents, and video footages and recordings of the HC put in writing their appeal, requests, and other concerns. According to
hearings since it was neither the appropriate nor the authorized body respondents, the parties agreed that Cadet 1 CL Cudia would not join
to take action thereon.39 Subsequently, upon verbal advice, Cadet 1 CL the graduation but it was without prejudice to the result of the appeal,
Cudia wrote a letter to Maj. Gen. Lopez reiterating his request.40 which was elevated to the AFP Chief of Staff. The President then
tasked Gen. Bautista to handle the reinvestigation of the case, with
Maj. Gen. Oscar Lopez supervising the group conducting the review.
Two days after, the Spouses Cudia filed a letter-complaint before the
CHR-Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) Office against the HC
members and Maj. Gracilla for alleged violation of the human rights of Four days after Siklab Diwa Class' graduation day, petitioner Renato S.
Cadet lCL Cudia, particularly his rights to due process, education, and Cudia received a letter dated March 11, 2014 from the Office of the
privacy of communication.41 AFP Adjutant General and signed by Brig. Gen. Ronald N. Albano for
the AFP Chief of Staff, affirming the CRAB' s denial of Cadet 1 CL
Cudia' s appeal. It held:
On March 4, 2014, Cadet 1 CL Cudia, through the PAO, moved for
additional time, until March 19, 2014, to file his appeal and submit
evidence. PAO also wrote a letter to AFP Chief of Staff General After review, The Judge Advocate General, APP finds that the action of
Emmanuel T. Bautista (Gen. Bautista) seeking for immediate directive the PMA CRAB in denying the appeal for reinvestigation is legally in
to the PMA to expeditiously and favorably act on Cadet 1CL Cudia's order. There was enough evidence to sustain the finding of guilt and
requests.42 the proprietary (sic) of the punishment imposed. Also, your son was
afforded sufficient time to file his appeal from the date he was
informed of the final verdict on January 21, 2014, when the decision of
Exactly a week prior to the commencement exercises of Siklab Diwa
the Honor Committee was read to him in person, until the time the
Class, the following events transpired:
PMA CRAB conducted its review on the case. Moreover, the continued
stay of your son at the Academy was voluntary. As such, he remained
On March 10, 2014, Annavee sought the assistance of PAO Chief Public subject to the Academy's policy regarding visitation. Further, there was
Attorney Persida V. Rueda-Acosta.43 On the other hand, the CRAB no violation of his right to due process considering that the procedure
submitted a report to the AFP-GHQ upholding the dismissal of Cadet 1 undertaken by the Honor Committee and PMA CRAB was consistent
CL Cudia.44 with existing policy. Thus, the previous finding and recommendation of
the Honor Committee finding your son, subject Cadet guilty of "Lying"
and recommending his separation from the Academy is sustained.
On March 11, 2014, PAO received a letter from Maj. Gen. Lopez stating
the denial of Cadet 1CL Cudia's requests for extension of time to file an
Appeal Memorandum in view of the ample time already given, and to In view of the foregoing, this Headquarters resolved to deny your
be furnished with a copy of relevant documents because of appeal for lack of merit.51 Thereafter, the Fact-Finding
confidentiality and presumption of regularity of the HC Board/Investigating Body issued its Final Investigation Report on

14
March 23, 2014 denying Cadet 1 CL Cudia's appeal. 52 Subsequently, on Cudia who was then billeted at the PMA Holding
April 28, 2014, the special investigation board tasked to probe the case Center;
submitted its final report to the President.53 Pursuant to the
administrative appeals process, the DND issued a Memorandum dated
5. The Office of the AFP Chief of Staff and PMA
May 23, 2014, directing the Office of AFP Chief of Staff to submit the
competent authorities should investigate Maj.
complete records of the case for purposes of DND review and
DENNIS ROMMEL HINDANG for his failure and
recommendation for disposition by the President.54
ineptness to exercise his responsibility as a
competent Tactical Officer and a good father of
Meanwhile, on May 22, 2014, the CHR-CAR issued its Resolution with his cadets, in this case, to Cadet Cudia; for failure
respect to CHR-CAR Case No. 2014-0029, concluding and to respect exhaustion of administrative remedies;
recommending as follows:
6. The Secretary of National Defense, the Chief of
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Commission on Human Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philppines, the
Rights-CAR Office finds PROBABLE CAUSE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PMA Superintendent, to immediately cause the
VIOLATIONS against the officers and members of the PMA Honor comprehensive review of all rules of procedures,
Committee and .. certain PMA officials, specifically for violations of the regulations, policies, including the so-called
rights of CADET ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA to dignity, due process, practices in the implementation of the Honor
education, privacy/privacy of communication, and good life. Code; and, thereafter, adopt new policies, rules of
procedures and relevant regulations which are
human-rights based and consistent with the
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the CHR-CAR Office RESOLVED to
Constitution and other applicable laws;
indorse to competent authorities for their immediate appropriate action
on the following recommendations:
7. The Congress of the Philippines to consider the
enactment of a law defining and penalizing
1. The Philippine Military Academy must set aside
ostracism and discrimination, which is apparently
the "9-Guilty, 0-Not Guilty" verdict against Cadet
being practiced in the PMA, as a criminal offense
Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia, for being null and void; to
in this jurisdiction;
uphold and respect the "8-Guilty, 1-Not Guilty"
voting result and make an official pronouncement
of NOT GUILTY in favor of Cadet Cudia; 8. His Excellency The President of the Philippines
to certify as priority, the passage of an anti-
ostracism and/or anti-discrimination law; and
2. The PMA, the AFP Chief of Staff, and the
President in whose hands rest the ends of justice
and fate of Cadet Cudia, to: 9. Finally, for the AFP Chief of Staff and the PMA
authorities to ensure respect and protection of the
rights of those who testified for the cause of
2.1 officially proclaim Cadet Cudia a
justice and truth as well as human rights of Cadet
graduate and alumnus of the Philippine
Cudia.
Military Academy;

RESOLVED FURTHER, to monitor the actions by the competent

2.2 issue to Cadet Cudia the
authorities on the foregoing CHR recommendations.
corresponding Diploma for the degree of
Bachelors of Science; and
Let copy of this resolution be served by personal service or by
substituted service to the complainants (the spouses Renato and
2.3 Issue to Cadet Cudia the
Filipina Cudia; and Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia), and all the respondents. Also,
corresponding official transcript 'of his
to the PMA Superintendent, the AFP Chief of Staff, the Secretary of
academic records for his BS degree,
National Defense, His Excellency The President of the Philippines, The
without conditions therein as to his
Public Attorneys' Office.
status as a PMA cadet.

SO RESOLVED.55
3. The Public Attorneys' Office to provide legal
services to Cadet Cudia in pursuing administrative,
criminal and civil suits against the officers and On June 11, 2014, the Office of the President sustained the findings of
members of the Honor Committee named the AFP Chief of Staff and the CRAB. The letter, which was addressed
hereunder, for violation of the Honor Code and to the Spouses Cudia and signed by Executive Secretary Paquito N.
System and the Procedure in Formal Investigation, Ochoa, Jr., stated in whole:
dishonesty, violation of the secrecy of the ballot,
tampering the true result of the voting, perjury,
This refers to your letters to the President dated 12 March 2014 and
intentional omission in the Minutes of substantive
26 March 2014 appealing for a reconsideration of the decision of the
part of the formal trial proceedings which are
Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Honor Committee on the case of
prejudicial to the interest of justice and Cadet
your son, Cadet 1 CL Aldrin Jeff Cudia.
Cudia's fundamental rights to dignity, non-
discrimination and due process, which led to the
infringement of his right to education and even
transgressing his right to a good life.

4. The Office of the AFP Chief of Staff and the

PMA competent authorities should investigate and
file appropriate charges against Maj. VLADIMIR P.
GRACILLA, for violation of the right to privacy of
Cadet Cudia and/or failure, as intelligence officer,
to ensure the protection of the right to privacy of

15
After carefully studying the records of the case of Cadet Cudia, the Constitution, notwithstanding the unquestionable fact that
decision of the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines the former should yield to the latter.
(AFP), and the Honor Code System of the AFP Cadet Corps, this Office
has found no substantial basis to disturb the findings of the AFP and
II
the PMA Cadet Review Appeals Board (CRAB). There is no competent
evidence to support the claim that the decision of the Honor
Committee members was initially at 8 "Guilty" votes and 1 "Not Guilty" WHETHER THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY, THE HONOR
vote. The lone affidavit of an officer, based on his purported COMMITTEE AND THE CADET REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
conversation with one Honor Committee member, lacks personal COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT
knowledge on the deliberations of the said Committee and is hearsay CADET FIRST CLASS ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA LIED, THEREBY
at best. VIOLATING THE HONOR CODE

Similarly, the initial recommendations of the Commission on Human III

Rights cannot be adopted as basis that Cadet Cudia's due process
rights were violated. Apart from being explicitly preliminary in nature, WHETHER THE RESULT OF THE FACT-FINDING INVESTIGATION
such recommendations are anchored on a finding that there was an 8- INDEPENDENTLY CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN
1 vote which, as discussed above, is not supported by competent RIGHTS IS OF SUCH GREAT WEIGHT AND PERSUASIVE NATURE THAT
evidence. THIS HONORABLE COURT MAY HONOR, UPHOLD AND RESPECT57

In the evaluation of Cadet Cudia's case, this Office has been guided by On the other hand, in support of their prayer to dismiss the petition,
the precept that military law is regarded to be in a class of its own, respondents presented the issues below:
"applicable only to military personnel because the military constitutes
an armed organization requiring a system of discipline separate from
that of civilians" (Gonzales v. Abaya, G.R. No. 164007, 10 August 2005 PROCEDURAL GROUNDS
citing Calley v. Callaway, 519 F. 2d 184 [1975] and Orloff v.
Willoughby, 345 US 83 [1953]). Thus, this Office regarded the findings I.
of the AFP Chief, particularly his conclusion that there was nothing
irregular in the proceedings that ensued, as carrying great weight.
THE MANDAMUS PETITION PRAYING THAT CADET CUDIA BE
INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF GRADUATES OF SIKLAB DIWA CLASS OF
Accordingly, please be informed that the President has sustained the 2014 AND BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PART IN THE COMMENCEMENT
findings of the AFP Chief and the PMA CRAB.56 EXERCISES HAS ALREADY BEEN RENDERED MOOT.

The Issues II.

To petitioners, the issues for resolution are: THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITIONS ARE ACTUALLY FACTUAL
WHICH ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI,
I. PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS.

WHETHER THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY, THE HONOR III.

COMMITTEE AND THE CADET REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING CADET MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO GRANT
FIRST CLASS ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA FROM THE ACADEMY IN UTTER THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR. IV. IT IS PREMATURE TO INVOKE
DISREGARD OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS CONSIDERING THAT: JUDICIAL REDRESS PENDING THE DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT ON
CADET CUDIA'S APPEAL.
A. Despite repeated requests for relevant documents
regarding his case, Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia was V.
deprived of his right to have access to evidence which would
have proven his defense, would have totally belied the
charge against him, and more importantly, would have WITH UTMOST DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT MUST
shown the irregularity in the Honor Committee's hearing and EXERCISE CAREFUL RESTRAINT AND REFRAIN FROM UNDULY OR
rendition of decision PREMATURELY INTERFERING WITH LEGITIMATE MILITARY MATTERS.

B. Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia was vaguely informed SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS
of the decisions arrived at by the Honor Committee, the
Cadet Review and Appeals Board and the Philippine Military VI.
Academy
CADET CUDIA HAS NECESSARILY AND VOLUNTARILY RELINQUISHED
C. The Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and Appeals CERTAIN CIVIL LIBERTIES BY VIRTUE OF HIS ENTRY INTO THE PMA.
Board and the Philippine Military Academy have afforded
Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia nothing but a sham trial
VII.

D. The Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and Appeals

Board and the Philippine Military Academy violated their own THE PMA ENJOYS THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM WHICH AUTHORIZES IT
rules and principles as embodied in the Honor Code TO IMPOSE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES AND PUNISHMENT AS IT
DEEMS FIT AND CONSISTENT WITH THE PECULIAR NEEDS OF THE
ACADEMY.
E. The Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and Appeals
Board and the Philippine Military Academy, in deciding Cadet
First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia's case, grossly and in bad faith, VIII.
misapplied the Honor Code so as to defy the 1987

16
CADET CUDIA WAS PROPERLY AFFORDED PROCEDURAL DUE We agree that a petition for mandamus is improper.
PROCESS.
Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for
The PMA has regulatory authority to administratively terminate cadets mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer,
despite the absence of statutory authority. or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.
It may also be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or
Violation of the Honor Code warrants the administrative dismissal of a
person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a
guilty cadet.
right or office to which such other is entitled.

Cadet Cudia violated the first tenet of the Honor Code by providing
For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must be a
untruthful statements in the explanation for his tardiness.
ministerial act or duty. An act is ministerial if the act should be
performed "[under] a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
The higher authorities of the PMA did not blindly adopt the findings of obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the
the Honor Committee. exercise of [the tribunal or corporation's] own judgment upon the
propriety or impropriety of the act done." The tribunal, corporation,
The procedural safeguards in a student disciplinary case were properly board, officer, or person must have no choice but to perform the act
accorded to Cadet Cudia. specifically enjoined by law. This is opposed to a discretionary act
whereby the officer has the choice to decide how or when to perform
the duty.61
The subtle evolution in the voting process of the Honor Committee, by
incorporating executive session/chambering, was adopted to further
strengthen the voting procedure of the Honor Committee. Cadet In this case, petitioners pray for, among others: Also, after due notice
Lagura voluntarily changed his vote without any pressure from the and hearing, it is prayed of the Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to:
other voting members of the Honor Committee.
1. direct the PMA to include Cadet Cudia in the list of
Ostracism is not a sanctioned practice of the PMA. graduates of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 of the PMA, including
inclusion in the yearbook;

The findings of the Commission on Human Rights are not binding on

the Honorable Court, and are, at best, recommendatory. 2. direct the PMA to allow Cadet Cudia to take part in the
commencement exercises if he completed all the
requirements for his baccalaureate degree;
Cadet Cudia was not effectively deprived of his future when he was
dismissed from the PMA.58
3. direct the PMA to award unto Cadet Cudia the academic
honors he deserves, and the commission as a new Philippine
The Ruling of the Court Navy ensign;

PROCEDURAL GROUNDS 4. direct the Honor Committee to submit to the CRAB of the
PMA all its records of the proceedings taken against Cadet
Propriety of a petition for mandamus Cudia, including the video footage and audio recordings of
the deliberations and voting, for the purpose of allowing the
CRAB to conduct intelligent review of the case of Cadet
Respondents argue that the mandamus aspect of the petition praying Cudia;
that Cadet 1 CL Cudia be included in the list of graduating cadets and
for him to take part in the commencement exercises was already
rendered moot and academic when the graduation ceremonies of the 5. direct the PMA's CRAB to conduct a review de nova of all
PMA Siklab Diwa Class took place on March 16, 2014. Also, a petition the records without requiring Cadet Cudia to submit new
for mandamus is improper since it does not lie to compel the evidence if it was physically impossible to do so;
performance of a discretionary duty. Invoking Garcia v. The Faculty
Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, 59 respondents assert 6. direct the PMA's CRAB to take into account the
that a mandamus petition could not be availed of to compel an certification signed by Dr. Costales, the new evidence
academic institution to allow a student to continue studying therein consisting of the affidavit of a military officer declaring under
because it is merely a privilege and not a right. In this case, there is a oath that the cadet who voted "not guilty" revealed to this
clear failure on petitioners' part to establish that the PMA has the, officer that this cadet was coerced into changing his vote,
ministerial duty to include Cadet 1 CL Cudia in the list, much less and other new evidence if there is any;
award him with academic honors and commission him to the Philippine
Navy. Similar to the case of University of San Agustin, Inc. v. Court of
Appeals,60 it is submitted that the PMA may rightfully exercise its 7. direct the PMA's CRAB to give Cadet Cudia the right to a
discretionary power on who may be admitted to study pursuant to its counsel who is allowed to participate actively in the
academic freedom. proceedings as well as in the cross-examinations during the
exercise of the right to confront witnesses against him; and

In response, petitioners contend that while the plea to allow Cadet 1

CL Cudia to participate in the PMA 2014 commencement exercises 8. direct the Honor Committee in case of remand of the case
could no longer be had, the Court may still grant the other reliefs by the CRAB to allow Cadet Cudia a representation of a
prayed for. They add that Garcia enunciated that a respondent can be counsel.62
ordered to act in a particular manner when there is a violation of a
constitutional right, and that the certiorari aspect of the petition must Similarly, petitioner-intervenor seeks for the following reliefs:
still be considered because it is within the province of the Court to
determine whether a branch of the government or any of its officials
A. xxx
has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess thereof.
B. a Writ of Mandamus be issued commanding:

17
 a.) The PMA, Honor Committee, and CRAB to In opposition, petitioners claim that the instant controversy presents
respect and uphold the 8 Guilty -1 Not Guilty vote; legal issues. Rather than determining which between the two
conflicting versions of the parties is true, the case allegedly centers on
the application, appreciation, and interpretation of a person's rights to
b.) The PMA, Honor Committee, and CRAB to
due process, to education, and to property; the interpretation of the
officially pronounce Cadet Cudia as Not Guilty of
PMA Honor Code and Honor System; and the conclusion on whether
the charge filed against him before the Honor
Cadet 1 CL Cudia's explanation constitutes lying. Even if the instant
Committee;
case involves questions of fact, petitioners still hold that the Court is
empowered to settle mixed questions of fact and law. Petitioners are
c.) The PMA to restore Cadet Cudia's rights and correct.
entitlements as a full-fledged graduating cadet,
including his diploma and awards.63
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
Anent the plea to direct the PMA to include Cadet 1 CL Cudia in the list falsehood of facts being admitted and the doubt concerns the correct
of graduates of Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 and to allow him to take part application of law and jurisprudence on the matter. On the other hand,
in the commencement exercises, the same was rendered moot and there is a question of fact when the doubt or controversy arises as to
academic when the graduation ceremonies pushed through on March the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to
16, 2014 without including Cadet 1 CL Cudia in the roll of graduates. fact, the question of whether or not the conclusion drawn therefrom is
correct is a question of law.69 The petition does not exclusively present
With respect to the prayer directing the PMA to restore Cadet 1 CL factual matters for the Court to decide. As pointed out, the all-
Cudia's rights and entitlements as a full-fledged graduating cadet, encompassing issue of more importance is the determination of
including his diploma, awards, and commission as a new Philippine whether a PMA cadet has rights to due process, to education, and to
Navy ensign, the same cannot be granted in a petition for mandamus property in the context of the Honor Code and the Honor System, and,
on the basis of academic freedom, which We shall discuss in more if in the affirmative, the extent or limit thereof. Notably, even
detail below. Suffice it to say at this point that these matters are within respondents themselves raise substantive grounds that We have to
the ambit of or encompassed by the right of academic freedom; resolve. In support of their contention that the Court must exercise
therefore, beyond the province of the Court to decide. 64 The powers to careful restraint and should refrain from unduly or prematurely
confer degrees at the PMA, grant awards, and commission officers in interfering in legitimate military matters, they argue that Cadet 1 CL
the military service are discretionary acts on the part of the President Cudia has necessarily and voluntarily relinquished certain civil liberties
as the AFP Commander-in-Chief. Borrowing the words of Garcia: by virtue of his entry into the PMA, and that the Academy enjoys
academic freedom authorizing the imposition of disciplinary measures
and punishment as it deems fit and consistent with the peculiar needs
There are standards that must be met. There are policies to be of the PMA. These issues, aside from being purely legal being purely
pursued. Discretion appears to be of the essence. In terms of legal questions, are of first impression; hence, the Court must not
Hohfeld's terminology, what a student in the position of petitioner hesitate to make a categorical ruling.
possesses is a privilege rather than a right. She [in this case, Cadet 1
CL Cudia] cannot therefore satisfy the prime and indispensable
requisite of a mandamus proceeding.65 Exhaustion of administrative remedies

Certainly, mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. It cannot be Respondents assert that the Court must decline jurisdiction over the
availed against an official or government agency whose duty requires petition pending President Aquino’s resolution of Cadet 1 CL Cudia'
the exercise of discretion or judgment.66 For a writ to issue, petitioners appeal. They say that there is an obvious non-exhaustion of the full
should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and there administrative process. While Cadet 1 CL Cudia underwent the review
should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents to perform procedures of his guilty verdict at the Academy level - the
the act sought to be mandated.67 determination by the SJA of whether the HC acted according to the
established procedures of the Honor System, the assessment by the
Commandant of Cadets of the procedural and legal correctness of the
The same reasons can be said as regards the other reliefs being guilty verdict, the evaluation of the PMA Superintendent to warrant the
sought by petitioners, which pertain to the HC and the CRAB administrative separation of the guilty cadet, and the appellate review
proceedings. In the absence of a clear and unmistakable provision of a proceedings before the CRAB - he still appealed to the President, who
law, a mandamus petition does not lie to require anyone to a specific has the utmost latitude in making decisions affecting the military. It is
course of conduct or to control or review the exercise of discretion; it contended that the President's power over the persons and actions of
will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty the members of the armed forces is recognized in B/Gen. (Ret.)
to do or which is his duty not to do or give to the applicant anything to Gudani v. Lt./Gen. Senga70 and in Section 3171 of Commonwealth Act
which he is not entitled by law.68 (CA.) No. 1 (also known as "The National Defense Act''). As such, the
President could still overturn the decision of the PMA. In respondents'
The foregoing notwithstanding, the resolution of the case must view, the filing of this petition while the case is pending resolution of
proceed since, as argued by petitioners, the Court is empowered to the President is an irresponsible defiance, if not a personal affront. For
settle via petition for certiorari whether there is grave abuse of them, comity dictates that courts of justice should shy away from a
discretion on the part of respondents in dismissing Cadet 1 CL Cudia dispute until the system of administrative redress has been completed.
from the PMA.
From the unfolding of events, petitioners, however, consider that
Factual nature of the issues President Aquino effectively denied the appeal of Cadet 1 CL Cudia.
They claim that his family exerted insurmountable efforts to seek
reconsideration of the HC recommendation from the APP officials and
According to respondents, the petition raises issues that actually the President, but was in vain. The circumstances prior to, during, and
require the Court to make findings of fact because it sets forth several after the PMA 2014 graduation rites, which was attended by President
factual disputes which include, among others: the tardiness of Cadet 1 Aquino after he talked to Cadet lCL Cudia's family the night before,
CL Cudia in , his ENG412 class and his explanation thereto, the foreclose the possibility that the challenged findings would still be
circumstances that transpired in the investigation of his Honor Code overturned. In any case, petitioners insist that the· rule on exhaustion
violation, the proceedings before the HC, and the allegation that Cadet of administrative remedies is not absolute based on the Corsiga v.
1 CL Lagura was forced to change his vote during the executive Defensor72 and Verceles v. BLR-DOLE73 rulings.
session/"chambering."

18
We rule for petitioners. should be a deferential review of military statutes and regulations since
political branches have particular expertise and competence in
assessing military needs. Likewise, in Orloff v. Willoughby79 and Parker
In general, no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or
v. Levy,80 it was allegedly opined by the U.S. Supreme Court that the
threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been
military constitutes a specialized community governed by a separate
exhausted. The rationale behind the doctrine of exhaustion of
discipline from that of the civilian. According to respondents, the U.S.
administrative remedies is that "courts, for reasons of law, comity, and
courts' respect to the military recognizes that constitutional rights may
convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available
apply differently in the military context than in civilian society as a
administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper
whole. Such military deference is exercised either by refusing to apply
authorities, who are competent to act upon the matter complained of,
due process and equal protection doctrines in military cases or
have been given the appropriate opportunity to act and correct their
applying them but with leniency.
alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum."74 In the
U.S. case of Ringgold v. United States,75 which was cited by
respondents, it was specifically held that in a typical case involving a In respondents' view, although Philippine courts have the power of
decision by military authorities, the plaintiff must exhaust his remedies judicial review in cases attended with grave abuse of discretion
within the military before appealing to the court, the doctrine being amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, policy considerations call
designed both to preserve the balance between military and civilian for the widest latitude of deference to military affairs. Such respect is
authorities and to conserve judicial resources. exercised by the court where the issues to be resolved entail a
substantial consideration of legitimate governmental interest. They
suppose that allowing Cadet 1 CL Cudia's case to prosper will set an
Nonetheless, there are exceptions to the rule. In this jurisdiction, a
institutionally dangerous precedent, opening a Pandora's box of other
party may directly resort to judicial remedies if any of the following is
challenges against the specialized system of discipline of the PMA.
present:
They state that with the PMA's mandate to train cadets for permanent
commission in the AFP, its disciplinary rules and procedure necessarily
1. when there is a violation of due process; must impose h different standard of conduct compared with civilian
institutions.
2. when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
Petitioners, on the other hand, consider that this Court is part of the
3. when the administrative action is patently illegal State's check-and-balance machinery, specifically mandated by Article
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; VIII of the 1987 Constitution to ensure that no branch of the
government or any of its officials acts without or in excess of
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of, discretion amounting to lack or
4. when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative excess of jurisdiction. They assert that judicial non-interference in
agency concerned; military affairs is not deemed as absolute even in the U.S. They cite
Schlesinger and Parker, which were invoked by respondents, as well as
5. when there is irreparable injury; Burns v. Wilson81 and Harmon v. Brucker,82 wherein the U.S. Supreme
Court reviewed the proceedings of military tribunals on account of
issues posed concerning due process and violations of constitutional
6. when the respondent is a department secretary whose rights. Also, in Magno v. De Villa83 decided by this Court, petitioners
acts as an alter ego of the President bear the implied and note that We, in fact, exercised the judicial power to determine
assumed approval of the latter; whether the APP and the members of the court martial acted with
grave abuse o.f discretion in their military investigation.
7. when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies
would be unreasonable; Petitioners' contentions are tenable.

8. when it would amount to a nullification of a claim; Admittedly, the Constitution entrusts the political branches of the
government, not the courts, with superintendence and control over the
9. when the subject matter is a private land in land case military because the courts generally lack the competence and
proceedings; expertise necessary to evaluate military decisions and they are ill-
equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular
intrusion upon military authority might have.84 Nevertheless, for the
10. when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and sake of brevity, We rule that the facts as well as the legal issues in the
adequate remedy; and U.S. cases cited by respondents are not on all fours with the case of
Cadet 1 CL Cudia. Instead, what applies is the 1975 U.S. case of
11. when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of Andrews v. Knowlton,85 which similarly involved cadets who were
judicial intervention.76 separated from the United States Military Academy due to Honor Code
violations. Following Wasson v. Trowbridge86 and Hagopian v.
Knowlton,87 Andrews re-affirmed the power of the district courts to
Petitioners essentially raise the lack of due process in the dismissal of
review procedures used at the service academies in the separation or
Cadet 1 CL Cudia from the PMA. Thus, it may be a ground to give due
dismissal of cadets and midshipmen. While it recognized the
course to the petition despite the non-exhaustion of administrative
"constitutional permissibility of the military to set and enforce
remedies. Yet more significant is the fact that during the pendency of
uncommonly high standards of conduct and ethics," it said that the
this case, particularly on June 11, 2014, the Office of the President
courts "have expanded at an accelerated pace the scope of judicial
finally issued its ruling, which sustained the findings of the AFP Chief
access for review of military determinations." Later, in Kolesa v.
and the CRAB. Hence, the occurrence of this supervening event bars
Lehman,88 it was opined that it has been well settled that federal
any objection to the petition based on failure to exhaust administrative
courts have jurisdiction "where there is a substantial claim that
remedies.
prescribed military procedures violates one's constitutional rights." By
1983, the U.S. Congress eventually made major revisions to the
Court's interference within military affairs Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by expressly providing, among
others; for a direct review by the U.S. Supreme Court of decisions by
Respondents cite the U.S. cases of Bois v. Marsh77 and Schlesinger v. the military's highest appellate authority.89
Councilman78 to support their contention that judicial intervention
would pose substantial threat to military discipline and that there

19
Even without referring to U.S. cases, the position of petitioners is still Cadet Corps, took an oath and undertaking to stand by the Honor
formidable. In this jurisdiction, Section 1 Article VIII of the 1987 Code and the Honor System.
Constitution expanded the scope of judicial power by mandating that
the duty of the courts of justice includes not only "to settle actual
To say that a PMA cadet surrenders his fundamental human rights,
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
including the right to due process, is, for petitioners, contrary to the
enforceable" but also "to determine whether or not there has been a
provisions of Section 3, Article II of the 1987 Constitution,96 Executive
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
Order (E.O.) No. 17897 (as amended by E.O. No. 100598), AFP Code of
the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government" even if
Ethics, Oath of Cadet Corps to the Honor Code and the Honor System,
the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial
military professionalism, and, in general, military culture. They
functions.90 Grave abuse of discretion implies such capricious and
maintain that the HC, the CRAB, and the PMA, grossly and in bad faith
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction
misapplied the Honor Code and the Honor System in deciding Cadet
or where the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by
lCL Cudia's case considering that these should not be implemented at
reason of passion or personal hostility, which must be so patent and
the expense of human rights, due process, and fair play. Further,
gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal
under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, they can never
to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law.91
overpower or defy the 1987 Constitution since the former should yield
to the latter. Petitioners stress that the statement that "a cadet can be
The proceedings of the Cadet Honor Committee can, for purposes of compelled to surrender some civil rights and liberties in order for the
the Due Process Clause, be considered a governmental activity. As Code and System to be implemented" simply pertains to what cadets
ruled in Andrews: have to sacrifice in order to prove that they are men or women of
integrity and honor, such as the right to entertain vices and the right
to freely choose what they want to say or do. In the context of
The relationship between the Cadet Honor Committee and the
disciplinary investigation, it does not contemplate a surrender of the
separation process at the Academy has been sufficiently formalized,
right to due process but, at most, refers to the cadets' rights to privacy
and is sufficiently interdependent, so as to bring that committee's
and to remain silent.
activities within the definition of governmental activity for the purposes
of our review. While the Academy has long had the informal practice of
referring all alleged violations to the Cadet Honor Committee, the We concur with the stand of petitioners.
relationship between that committee and the separation process has to
a degree been formalized. x x x
Of course, a student at a military academy must be prepared to
subordinate his private interests for the proper functioning of the
Regardless of whether the relationship be deemed formal or informal, educational institution he attends to, one that is with a greater degree
the Honor Committee under its own procedures provides that a single than a student at a civilian public school.99 In fact, the Honor Code and
"not guilty" vote by a member ends the matter, while a "guilty" finding Honor System Handbook of the PMA expresses that, "[as] a training
confronts a cadet with the hard choice of either resigning or electing to environment, the Cadet Corps is a society which has its own norms.
go before a Board of Officers. An adverse finding there results not only Each member binds himself to what is good for him, his subordinates,
in formal separation from the Academy but also in a damaging record and his peers. To be part of the Cadet Corps requires the surrender of
that will follow the cadet through life. Accordingly, we conclude that some basic rights and liberties for the good of the group."100
the Cadet Honor Committee, acting not unlike a grand jury, is clearly
part of the process whereby a cadet can ultimately be adjudged to
It is clear, however, from the teachings of Wasson and Hagopian,
have violated the Cadet Honor Code and be separated from the
which were adopted by Andrews, that a cadet facing dismissal from
Academy. Therefore, the effect of the committee's procedures and
the military academy for misconduct has constitutionally protected
determinations on the separation process is sufficiently intertwined
private interests (life, liberty, or property); hence, disciplinary
with the formal governmental activity which may follow as to bring it
proceedings conducted within the bounds of procedural due process is
properly under judicial review92
a must.101 For that reason, the PMA is not immune from the strictures
of due process. Where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or
No one is above the law, including the military. In fact, the present integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him,
Constitution declares it as a matter of principle that civilian authority is, the minimal requirements of the due process clause must be
at all times, supreme over the military.93 Consistent with the republican satisfied.102 Likewise, the cadet faces far more severe sanctions of
system of checks and balances, the Court has been entrusted, being expelled from a course of college instruction which he or she has
expressly or by necessary implication, with both the duty and the pursued with a view to becoming a career officer and of probably
obligation of determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any
assailed legislative or executive action.94
being forever denied that career.103

SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS
The cases of Gudani and Kapunan, Jr. are inapplicable as they do not
specifically pertain to dismissal proceedings of a cadet in a military
Cadet's relinquishment of certain civil liberties academy due to honor violation. In Gudani, the Court denied the
petition that sought to annul the directive from then President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, which' enjoined petitioners from testifying before
Respondents assert that the standard of rights applicable to a cadet is
the Congress without her consent. We ruled that petitioners may be
not the same as that of a civilian because the former' s rights have
subjected to military discipline for their defiance of a direct order of
already been recalibrated to best serve the military purpose and
the AFP Chief of Staff. On the other hand, in Kapunan, Jr., this Court
necessity. They claim that both Gudani and Lt. Col. Kapunan, Jr. v.
upheld the restriction imposed on petitioner since the conditions for his
Gen. De Villa95 recognized that, to a certain degree, individual rights of
"house arrest" (particularly, that he may not issue any press
persons in the military service may be curtailed by the rules of military
statements or give any press conference during the period of his
discipline in order to ensure its effectiveness in fulfilling the duties
detention) are justified by the requirements of military discipline. In
required to be discharged under the law. Respondents remind that, as
these two cases, the constitutional rights to information, transparency
a military student aspiring to a commissioned post in the military
in matters of public concern, and to free speech - not to due process
service, Cadet 1 CL Cudia voluntarily gave up certain civil and political
clause - were restricted to better serve the greater military purpose.
rights which the rest of the civilian population enjoys. The deliberate
Academic freedom of the PMA
surrender of certain freedoms on his part is embodied in the cadets'
Honor Code Handbook. It is noted that at the beginning of their
academic life in the PMA, Cadet 1 CL Cudia, along with the rest of Petitioners posit that there is no law providing that a guilty finding by
the HC may be used by the PMA to dismiss or recommend the

20
dismissal of a cadet from the PMA. They argue that Honor Code enable them to pursue higher education or a profession. On the other
violation is not among those listed as justifications for the attrition of hand, the students agree to abide by the academic requirements of
cadets considering that the Honor Code and the Honor System do not the school and to observe its rules and regulations."114
state that a guilty cadet is automatically terminated or dismissed from
service. To them, the Honor Code and Honor System are "gentleman's
Academic freedom or, to be precise, the institutional autonomy of
agreement" that cannot take precedence over public interest - in the
universities and institutions of higher learning,115 has been enshrined in
defense of the nation and in view of the taxpayer's money spent for
our Constitutions of 1935, 1973, and 1987.116 In Garcia, this Court
each cadet. Petitioners contend that, based on the Civil Code, all
espoused the concurring opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix
written or verbal agreements are null and void if they violate the law,
Frankfurter in Sweezy v. New Hampshire,117 which enumerated "the
good morals, good customs, public policy, and public safety.
four essential freedoms" of a university: To determine for itself on
academic grounds (1) who may teach, (2) what may be taught, (3)
In opposition, respondents claim that the PMA may impose disciplinary how it shall be taught, and (4) who may be admitted to study.118 An
measures and punishment as it deems fit and consistent with the educational institution has the power to adopt and enforce such rules
peculiar needs of the Academy. Even without express provision of a as may be deemed expedient for its government, this being incident to
law, the PMA has regulatory authority to administratively dismiss erring the very object of incorporation, and indispensable to the successful
cadets since it is deemed reasonably written into C.A. No. 1. Moreover, management of the college.119 It can decide for itself its aims and
although said law grants to the President the authority of terminating a objectives and how best to attain them, free from outside coercion or
cadet's appointment, such power may be delegated to the PMA interference except when there is an overriding public welfare which
Superintendent, who may exercise direct supervision and control over would call for some restraint.120 Indeed, "academic freedom has never
the cadets. been meant to be an unabridged license. It is a privilege that assumes
a correlative duty to exercise it responsibly. An equally telling precept
is a long recognized mandate, so well expressed in Article 19 of the
Respondents likewise contend that, as an academic institution, the
Civil Code, that every 'person must, in the exercise of his rights and in
PMA has the inherent right to promulgate reasonable norms, rules and
the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
regulations that it may deem necessary for the maintenance of school
and observe honesty and good faith."'121
discipline, which is specifically mandated by Section 3 (2),104 Article XIV
of the 1987 Constitution. As the premiere military educational
institution of the AFP in accordance with Section 30,105 Article III of The schools' power to instill discipline in their students is subsumed in
C.A. No. 1 and Sections 58 and 59,106 Chapter 9, Subtitle II, Title VIII, their academic freedom and that "the establishment of rules governing
Book IV of E.O. No. 292 ("Administrative Code of 1987"), the PMA is university-student relations, particularly those pertaining to student
an institution that enjoys academic freedom guaranteed by Section 5 discipline, may be regarded as vital, not merely to the smooth and
(2),107 Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution. In Miriam College efficient operation of the institution, but to its very survival."122 As a
Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,108 it was held that concomitant Bohemian proverb puts it: "A school without discipline is like a mill
with such freedom is the right and duty to instill and impose discipline without water." Insofar as the water turns the mill, so does the
upon its students. Also, consistent with lsabelo, Jr. v. Perpetual Help school's disciplinary power assure its right to survive and continue
College of Rizal, Inc.109 and Ateneo de Manila University v. operating.123 In this regard, the Court has always recognized the right
Capulong,110 the PMA has the freedom on who to admit (and, of schools to impose disciplinary sanctions, which includes the power
conversely, to expel) given the high degree of discipline and honor to dismiss or expel, on students who violate disciplinary rules.124 In
expected from its students who are to form part of the AFP. Miriam College Foundation, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,125 this Court
elucidated:
For respondents, Cadet 1 CL Cudia cannot, therefore, belatedly assail
the Honor Code as basis of the HC' s decision to recommend his The right of the school to discipline its students is at once apparent in
dismissal from the PMA. When he enlisted for enrolment and studied in the third freedom, i.e., "how it shall be taught." A school certainly
the PMA for four years, he knew or should have been fully aware of cannot function in an atmosphere of anarchy.
the standards of discipline imposed on all cadets and the
corresponding penalty for failing to abide by these standards.
Thus, there can be no doubt that the establishment of an educational
institution requires rules and regulations necessary for the
In their Reply, petitioners counter that, as shown in lsabelo, Jr. and maintenance of an orderly educational program and the creation of an
Ateneo, academic freedom is not absolute and cannot be exercised in educational environment conducive to learning. Such rules and
blatant disregard of the right to due process and the 1987 regulations are equally necessary for the protection of the students,
Constitution. Although schools have the prerogative to choose what to faculty, and property.
teach, how to teach, and who to teach, the same does not go so far as
to deprive a student of the right to graduate when there is clear
Moreover, the school has an interest in teaching the student discipline,
evidence that he is entitled to the same since, in such a case, the right
a necessary, if not indispensable, value in any field of learning. By
to graduate becomes a vested right which takes precedence over the
instilling discipline, the school teaches discipline. Accordingly, the right
limited and restricted right of the educational institution.
to discipline the student likewise finds basis in the freedom "what to
teach." Incidentally, the school not only has the right but the duty to
While both parties have valid points to consider, the arguments of develop discipline in its students. The Constitution no less imposes
respondents are more in line with the facts of this case. We have ruled such duty.
that the school-student relationship is contractual in nature. Once
admitted, a student's enrolment is not only semestral in duration but
[All educational institutions] shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism,
for the entire period he or she is expected to complete it.111 An
foster love of humanity, respect for human rights, appreciation of the
institution of learning has an obligation to afford its students a fair
role of national heroes in the historical development of the country,
opportunity to complete the course they seek to pursue.112 Such
teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and
contract is imbued with public interest because of the high priority
spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline,
given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of
encourage critical and creative thinking, broaden scientific and
supervisory and regulatory powers over a educational institutions.113
technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.

The school-student relationship has also been held as reciprocal. "[It]

In Angeles vs. Sison, we also said that discipline was a means for the
has consequences appurtenant to and inherent in all contracts of such
school to carry out its responsibility to help its students "grow and
kind -it gives rise to bilateral or reciprocal rights and obligations. The
develop into mature, responsible, effective and worthy citizens of the
school undertakes to provide students with education sufficient to
community."

21
Finally, nowhere in the above formulation is the right to discipline learn under the rules laid down by the school. 131 Every citizen has a
more evident than in "who may be admitted to study." If a school has right to select a profession or, course of study, subject to fair,
the freedom to determine whom to admit, logic dictates that it also reasonable, and equitable admission and academic
has the right to determine whom to exclude or expel, as well as upon requirements.132 The PMA is not different. As the primary training and
whom to impose lesser sanctions such as suspension and the educational institution of the AFP, it certainly has the right to invoke
withholding of graduation privileges.126 academic freedom in the enforcement of its internal rules and
regulations, which are the Honor Code and the Honor System in
particular.
The power of the school to impose disciplinary measures extends even
after graduation for any act done by the student prior thereto. In
University of the Phils. Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals, 127 We The Honor Code is a set of basic and fundamental ethical and moral
upheld the university's withdrawal of a doctorate degree already principle. It is the minimum standard for cadet behavior and serves as
conferred on a student who was found to have committed intellectual the guiding spirit behind each cadet's action. It is the cadet's
dishonesty in her dissertation. Thus: responsibility to maintain the highest standard of honor. Throughout a
cadet's stay in the PMA, he or she is absolutely bound thereto. It binds
as well the members of the Cadet Corps from its alumni or the
Art. XIV, §5 (2) of the Constitution provides that "[a]cademic freedom
member of the so-called "Long Gray Line."
shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." This is nothing
new. The 1935 Constitution and the 1973 Constitution likewise
provided for the academic freedom or, more precisely, for the Likewise, the Honor Code constitutes the foundation for the cadets'
institutional autonomy of universities and institutions of higher character development. It defines the desirable values they must
learning. As pointed out by this Court in Garcia v. Faculty Admission possess to remain part of the Corps; it develops the atmosphere of
Committee, Loyola School of Theology, it is a freedom granted to trust so essential in a military organization; and it makes them
"institutions of higher learning" which is thus given "a wide sphere of professional military soldiers.133 As it is for character building, it should
authority certainly extending to the choice of students." If such not only be kept within the society of cadets. It is best adopted by the
institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot Cadet Corps with the end view of applying it outside as an officer of
study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the the AFP and as a product of the PMA.134
honor and distinction of being its graduates.
The Honor Code and System could be justified as the primary means
Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was of achieving the cadets' character development and as ways by which
obtained through fraud, a university has the right to revoke or the Academy has chosen to identify those who are deficient in
withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. This freedom conduct.135 Upon the Code rests the ethical standards of the Cadet
of a university does not terminate upon the "graduation" of a Corps and it is also an institutional goal, ensuring that graduates have
student, .as the Court of Appeals held. For it is precisely the strong character, unimpeachable integrity, and moral standards of the
"graduation" of such a student that is in question. It is noteworthy that highest order.136 To emphasize, the Academy's disciplinary system as a
the investigation of private respondent's case began before her whole is characterized as "correctional and educational in nature rather
graduation. If she was able to join the graduation ceremonies on April than being legalistic and punitive." Its purpose is to teach the cadets
24, 1993, it was because of too many investigations conducted before "to be prepared to accept full responsibility for all that they do or fail
the Board of Regents finally decided she should not have been allowed to do and to place loyalty to the service above self-interest or loyalty
to graduate. to friends or associates. "137 Procedural safeguards in a student
disciplinary case
Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted to institutions of
higher learning, for the constitutional grant of academic freedom, to Respondents stress that Guzman v. National University138 is more
quote again from Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola appropriate in determining the minimum standards for the imposition
School of Theology, "is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions. Similarly, with the
a grudging fashion." guideposts set in Andrews, they believe that Cadet 1 CL Cudia was
accorded due process.
Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the highest governing
body of the University of the Philippines. It has the power to confer On the other hand, petitioners argue that the HC, the CRAB and the
degrees upon the recommendation of the University Council. It follows PMA fell short in observing the important safeguards laid down in Ang
that if the conferment of a degree is founded on error or fraud, the Tibay v. CIR139 and Non v. Judge Dames II,140 which set the minimum
Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the observance of due standards to satisfy the demands of procedural due process in the
process, to withdraw what it has granted without violating a student's imposition of disciplinary sanctions. For them, Guzman did not entirely
rights. An institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if it do away with the due process requirements outlined in Ang Tibay as
discovers that an academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully the Court merely stated that the minimum requirements in the
deserved. Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a Guzman case are more apropos.
university's highest academic degree upon an individual who has
obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic
Respondents rightly argued.
excellence is the university's concern. It should be empowered, as an
act of self-defense, to take measures to protect itself from serious
threats to its integrity. Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong141 already settled the issue as
it held that although both Ang Tibay and Guzman essentially deal with
the requirements of due process, the latter case is more apropos since
While it is true that the students are entitled to the right to pursue
it specifically deals with the minimum standards to be satisfied in the
their education, the USC as an educational institution is also entitled to
imposition of disciplinary sanctions in academic institutions. That
pursue its academic freedom and in the process has the concomitant
Guzman is the authority on the procedural rights of students in
right to see to it that this freedom is not jeopardized.128
disciplinary cases was reaffirmed by the Court in the fairly recent case
of Go v. Colegio De San Juan De Letran.142
It must be borne in mind that schools are established, not merely to
develop the intellect and skills of the studentry, but to inculcate lofty
In Guzman, the Court held that there are minimum standards which
values, ideals and attitudes; nay, the development, or flowering if you
must be met to satisfy the demands of procedural due process, to wit:
will, of the total man.129 Essentially, education must ultimately be
religious, i.e., one which inculcates duty and reverence.130 Under the
rubric of "right to education," students have a concomitant duty to

22
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause to a systematic list of externally observed rules. Where
of any accusation against them; (2) they shall have the right to answer misinterpretations and loopholes arise through legalism and its
the charges against them, with the assistance of counsel, if desired; technicalities, the objective of building the character of the cadets
(3) they shall be informed of the evidence against them; ( 4) they shall becomes futile. While, generally, Public Law penalizes only the faulty
have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the acts, the Honor System tries to examine both the action and the
evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or intention.152
official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the
case.143
Like in other institutions of higher learning, there is aversion towards
undue judicialization of an administrative hearing in the military
We have been consistent in reminding that due process in disciplinary academy. It has been said that the mission of the military is unique in
cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings the sense that its primary business is to fight or be ready to fight wars
similar to those prescribed for actions and proceedings in courts of should the occasion arise, and that over-proceduralizing military
justice;144 that the proceedings may be summary;145 that cross- determinations necessarily gives soldiers less time to accomplish this
examination is not an essential part of the investigation or task.153 Extensive cadet investigations and complex due process
hearing;146 and that the required proof in a student disciplinary action, hearing could sacrifice simplicity, practicality, and timeliness.
which is an administrative case, is neither proof beyond reasonable Investigations that last for several days or weeks, sessions that
doubt nor preponderance of evidence but only substantial evidence or become increasingly involved with legal and procedural' points, and
"such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as legal motions and evidentiary objections that are irrelevant and
adequate to support a conclusion."147 inconsequential tend to disrupt, delay, and confuse the dismissal
proceedings and make them unmanageable. Excessive delays cannot
be tolerated since it is unfair to the accused, to his or her fellow
What is crucial is that official action must meet minimum standards of
cadets, to the Academy, and, generally, to the Armed Forces. A good
fairness to the individual, which generally encompass the right of
balance should, therefore, be struck to achieve fairness, thoroughness,
adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 148 As held
and efficiency.154 Considering that the case of Cadet 1 CL Cudia is one
in De La Salle University, Inc. v. Court of Appeals:149
of first impression in the sense that this Court has not previously dealt
with the particular issue of a dismissed cadet's right to due process, it
Notice and hearing is the bulwark of administrative due process, the is necessary for Us to refer to U.S. jurisprudence for some guidance.
right to which is among the primary rights that must be respected Notably, our armed forces have been patterned after the U.S. Army
even in administrative proceedings. The essence of due process is and the U.S. military code produced a salutary effect in the military
simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative justice system of the Philippines. 155 Hence, pertinent case laws
proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to interpreting the U.S. military code and practices have persuasive, if not
seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. So long as the same, effect in this jurisdiction.
the party is given the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her
interest in due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due
We begin by stating that U.S. courts have uniformly viewed that "due
process.
process" is a flexible concept, requiring consideration in each case of a
variety of circumstances and calling for such procedural protections as
A formal trial-type hearing is not, at all times and in all instances, the particular situation demands.156 Hagopian opined:
essential to due process - it is enough that the parties are given a fair
and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of the
In approaching the question of what process is due before
controversy and to present supporting evidence on which a fair
governmental action adversely affecting private interests may properly
decision can be based. "To be heard" does not only mean presentation
be taken, it must be recognized that due process is not a rigid formula
of testimonial evidence in court - one may also be heard through
or simple rule of thumb to be applied undeviatingly to any given set of
pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard through pleadings is
facts. On the contrary, it is a flexible concept which depends upon the
accorded, there is no denial of due process.150
balancing of various factors, including the nature of the private right or
interest that is threatened, the extent to which the proceeding is
The PMA Honor Code explicitly recognizes that an administrative adversarial in character, the severity and consequences of any action
proceeding conducted to investigate a cadet's honor violation need not that might be taken, the burden that would be imposed by requiring
be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. It articulates use of all or part of the full panoply of trial-type procedures, and the
that – The Spirit of the Honor Code guides the Corps in identifying and existence of other overriding interests, such as the necessity for
assessing misconduct. While cadets are interested in legal precedents prompt action in the conduct of crucial military operations. The full
in cases involving Honor violations, those who hold the Spirit of the context must therefore be considered in each case. 157 (Emphasis
Honor Code dare not look into these precedents for loopholes to justify supplied)
questionable acts and they are not to interpret the system to their own
advantage.
Wasson, which was cited by Hagopian, broadly outlined the minimum
standards of due process required in the dismissal of a cadet. Thus:
The Spirit of the Honor Code is a way for the cadets to internalize
Honor in a substantive way. Technical and procedural misgivings of the
[W]hen the government affects the private interests of individuals, it
legal systems may avert the true essence of imparting the Spirit of the
may not proceed arbitrarily but must observe due process of law. x x x
Code for the reason that it can be used to make unlawful attempt to
Nevertheless, the flexibility which is inherent in the concept of due
get into the truth of matters especially when a cadet can be compelled
process of law precludes the dogmatic application of specific rules
to surrender some civil rights and liberties in order for the Code and
developed in one context to entirely distinct forms of government
System to be implemented. By virtue of being a cadet, a member of
action. "For, though 'due process of law' generally implies and includes
the CCAFP becomes a subject of the Honor Code and System. Cadet's
actor, reus, judex, regular allegations, opportunity to answer, and a
actions are bound by the existing norms that are logically applied
trial according to some settled course of judicial proceedings, * * *
through the Code and System in order to realize the Academy's
yet, this is not universally true." x x x Thus, to determine in any given
mission to produce leaders of character - men of integrity and
case what procedures due process requires, the court must carefully
honor.151
determine and balance the nature of the private interest affected and
of the government interest involved, taking account of history and the
One of the fundamental principles of the Honor System also states: precise circumstances surrounding the case at hand.

2. The Honor System correlates with legal procedures of the state's

Justice System but it does not demean its Spirit by reducing the Code

23
While the government must always have a legitimate concern with the their respective jurisdictions, the factual findings of administrative
subject matter before it may validly affect private interests, in tribunals are ordinarily accorded respect if not finality by the Court,
particularly vital and sensitive areas of government concern such as unless such findings are not supported by evidence or vitiated by
national security and military affairs, the private interest must yield to fraud, imposition or collusion; where the procedure which led to the
a greater degree to the governmental. x x x Few decisions properly findings is irregular; when palpable errors are committed; or when a
rest so exclusively within the discretion of the appropriate government grave abuse of discretion, arbitrariness, or capriciousness is
officials than the selection, training, discipline and dismissal of the manifest.162 In the case of Cadet 1 CL Cudia, We find no reason to
future officers of the military and Merchant Marine. Instilling and deviate from the general rule. The grounds therefor are discussed
maintaining discipline and morale in these young men who will be below seriatim:
required to bear weighty responsibility in the face of adversity -- at
times extreme -- is a matter of substantial national importance scarcely
As to the right to be represented by a counsel –
within the competence of the judiciary. And it cannot be doubted that
because of these factors historically the military has been permitted
greater freedom to fashion its disciplinary procedures than the civilian For petitioners, respondents must be compelled to give Cadet 1 CL
authorities. Cudia the right to be represented by a counsel who could actively
participate in the proceedings like in the cross-examination of the
witnesses against him before the CRAB or HC, if remanded. This is
We conclude, therefore, that due process only requires for the
because while the CRAB allowed him to be represented by a PAO
dismissal of a Cadet from the Merchant Marine Academy that he be
lawyer, the counsel was only made an observer without any right to
given a fair hearing at which he is apprised of the charges against him
intervene and demand respect of Cadet 1 CL Cudia's
and permitted a defense. x x x For the guidance of the parties x x x
rights.163 According to them, he was not sufficiently given the
the rudiments of a fair hearing in broad outline are plain. The Cadet
opportunity to seek a counsel and was not even asked if he would like
must be apprised of the specific charges against him. He must be
to have one. He was only properly represented when it was already
given an adequate opportunity to present his defense both from the
nearing graduation day after his family sought the assistance of the
point of view of time and the use of witnesses and other evidence. We
PAO. Petitioners assert that Guzman is specific in stating that the
do not suggest, however, that the Cadet must be given this
erring student has the right to answer the charges against him or her
opportunity both when demerits are awarded and when dismissal is
with the assistance of counsel, if desired.
considered. The hearing may be procedurally informal and need not be
adversarial.158 (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, respondents cited Lumiqued v. Exevea164 and Nera
v. The Auditor General165 in asserting that the right to a counsel is not
In Andrews, the U.S. Court of Appeals held that Wasson and Hagopian
imperative in administrative investigations or non-criminal proceedings.
are equally controlling in cases where cadets were separated from the
Also, based on Cadet lCL Cudia's academic standing, he is said to be
military academy for violation of the Honor Code. Following the two
obviously not untutored to fully understand his rights and express
previous cases, it was ruled that in order to be proper and immune
himself. Moreover, the confidentiality of the HC proceedings worked
from constitutional infirmity, a cadet who is sought to be dismissed or
against his right to be represented by a counsel. In any event,
separated from the academy must be afforded a hearing, be apprised
respondents claim that Cadet 1 CL Cudia was not precluded from
of the specific charges against him, and be given an adequate
seeking a counsel's advice in preparing his defense prior to the HC
opportunity to present his or her defense both from the point of view
hearing.
of time and the use of witnesses and other evidence.159 Conspicuously,
these vital conditions are not too far from what We have already set in
Guzman and the subsequent rulings in Alcuaz v. Philippine School of Essentially, petitioners claim .. that Cadet lCL Cudia is guaranteed the
Business Administration160 and De La Salle University, Inc. v. Court of right to have his counsel not just in assisting him in the preparation for
Appeals.161 the investigative hearing before the HC and the CRAB but in
participating fully in said hearings. The Court disagrees.
In this case, the investigation of Cadet 1 CL Cudia' s Honor Code
violation followed the prescribed procedure and existing practices in Consistent with Lumiqued and Nera, there is nothing in the 1987
the PMA. He was notified of the Honor Report from Maj. Hindang. He Constitution stating that a party in a non-litigation proceeding is
was then given the opportunity to explain the report against him. He entitled to be represented by counsel. The assistance of a lawyer,
was informed about his options and the entire process that the case while desirable, is not indispensable. Further, in Remolona v. Civil
would undergo. The preliminary investigation immediately followed Service Commission,166 the Court held that "a party in an administrative
after he replied and submitted a written explanation. Upon its inquiry may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the
completion, the investigating team submitted a written report together nature of the charges and of the respondent's capacity to represent
with its recommendation to the HC Chairman. The HC thereafter himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person being
reviewed the findings and recommendations. When the honor case investigated with counsel." Hence, the administrative body is under no
was submitted for formal investigation, a new team was assigned to duty to provide the person with counsel because assistance of counsel
conduct the hearing. During the formal investigation/hearing, he was is not an absolute requirement.
informed of the charge against him and given the right to enter his
plea. He had the chance to explain his side, confront the witnesses More in point is the opinion in Wasson, which We adopt. Thus:
against him, and present evidence in his behalf. After a thorough
discussion of the HC voting members, he was found to have violated
the ' Honor Code. Thereafter, the guilty verdict underwent the review The requirement of counsel as an ingredient of fairness is a function of
process at the Academy level - from the OIC of the HC, to the SJA, to all of the other aspects of the hearing. Where the proceeding is non-
the Commandant of Cadets, and to the PMA Superintendent. A criminal in nature, where the hearing is investigative and not
separate investigation was also conducted by the HTG. Then, upon the adversarial and the government does not proceed through counsel,
directive of the AFP-GHQ to reinvestigate the case, a review was where the individual concerned is mature and educated, where his
conducted by the CRAB. Further, a Fact-Finding Board/Investigation knowledge of the events x x x should enable him to develop the facts
Body composed of the CRAB members and the PMA senior officers was adequately through available sources, and where the other aspects of
constituted to conduct a deliberate investigation of the case. Finally, the hearing taken as a whole are fair, due process does not require
he had the opportunity to appeal to the President. Sadly for him, all representation by counsel.167
had issued unfavorable rulings.
To note, U.S. courts, in general, have declined to recognize a right to
It is well settled that by reason of their special knowledge and representation by counsel, as a function of due process, in military
expertise gained from the handling of specific matters falling under academy disciplinary proceedings.168 This rule is principally motivated
by the policy of "treading lightly on the military domain, with

24
scrupulous regard for the power and authority of the military Basically, petitioners want Us to assume that the documents, footages,
establishment to govern its own affairs within the broad confines of and recordings relevant to the HC hearings are favorable to Cadet 1 CL
constitutional due process" and the courts' views that disciplinary Cudia's cause, and, consequently, to rule that respondents' refusal to
proceedings are not judicial in nature and should be kept informal, and produce and have them examined is tantamount to the denial of his
that literate and educated cadets should be able to defend right to procedural due process. They are mistaken.
themselves.169 In Hagopian, it was ruled that the importance of
informality in the proceeding militates against a requirement that the
In this case, petitioners have not particularly identified any documents,
cadet be accorded the right to representation by counsel before the
witness testimony, or oral or written presentation of facts submitted at
Academic Board and that unlike the welfare recipient who lacks the
the hearing that would support Cadet 1 CL Cudia's defense. The Court
training and education needed to understand his rights and express
may require that an administrative record be supplemented, but only
himself, the cadet should be capable of doing so.170 In the subsequent
"where there is a 'strong showing or bad faith or improper behavior' on
case of Wimmer v. Lehman,171 the issue was not access to counsel but
the part of the agency,"173 both of which are not present here.
the opportunity to have counsel, instead of oneself, examine and
Petitioners have not specifically indicated the nature of the concealed
cross-examine witnesses, make objections, and argue the case during
evidence, if any, and the reason for withholding it. What they did was
the hearing. Disposing of the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
simply supposing that Cadet 1 CL Cudia's guilty verdict would be
Fourth Circuit was not persuaded by the argument that an individual of
overturned with the production and examination of such documents,
a midshipman's presumed intelligence, selected because he is
footages, and recordings. As will be further shown in the discussions
expected to be able to care for himself and others, often under difficult
below, the requested matters, even if denied, would not relieve Cadet
circumstances, and who has full awareness of what he is facing, with
1 CL Cudia's predicament. If at all, such denial was a harmless
counsel's advice, was deprived of due process by being required to
procedural error since he was not seriously prejudiced thereby.
present his defense in person at an investigatory hearing.

As to the ostracism in the PMA –

In the case before Us, while the records are bereft of evidence that
Cadet 1 CL Cudia was given the option or was able to seek legal advice
prior to and/or during the HC hearing, it is indubitable that he was To petitioners, the CRAB considered only biased testimonies and
assisted by a counsel, a PAO lawyer to be exact, when the CRAB evidence because Special Order No. 1 issued on February 21, 2014,
reviewed and reinvestigated the case. The requirement of due process which directed the ostracism of Cadet 1 CL Cudia, left him without any
is already satisfied since, at the very least, the counsel aided him in opportunity, to secure statements of his own witnesses. He could not
the drafting and filing of the Appeal Memorandum and even acted as have access to or approach the cadets who were present during the
an observer who had no right to actively participate in the proceedings trial and who saw the 8-1 voting result. It is argued that the Order
(such as conducting the cross-examination). Moreover, not to be directing Cadet 1 CL Cudia's ostracism is of doubtful legal validity
missed out are the facts that the offense committed by Cadet 1 CL because the Honor Code unequivocally announced: "x x x But by
Cudia is not criminal in nature; that the hearings before the HC and wholeheartedly dismissing the cruel method of ostracizing Honor Code
the CRAB were investigative and not adversarial; and that Cadet lCL violators, PMA will not have to resort to other humiliating means and
Cudia's excellent-academic standing puts him in the best position to shall only have the option to make known among its alumni the names
look after his own vested interest in the Academy. of those who have not sincerely felt remorse for violating the Honor
Code."
As to the confidentiality of records of the proceedings –
On their part, respondents assert that neither the petition nor the
petition-in-intervention attached a full text copy of the alleged Special
Petitioners allege that when Maj. Gen. Lopez denied in his March 11,
Order No. 1. In any case, attributing its issuance to PMA is improper
2014 letter Cadet lCL Cudia's request for documents, footages, and
and misplaced because of petitioners' admission that ostracism has
recordings relevant to the HC hearings, the vital evidence negating the
been absolutely dismissed as an Academy-sanctioned activity
regularity of the HC trial and supporting his defense have been surely
consistent with the trend in International Humanitarian Law that the
overlooked by the CRAB in its case review. Indeed, for them, the
PMA has included in its curriculum. Assuming that said Order was
answers on whether Cadet 1 CL Cudia was deprived of due process
issued, respondents contend that it purely originated from the cadets
and whether he lied could easily be unearthed from the video and
themselves, the sole purpose of which was to give a strong voice to
other records of the HC investigation. Respondents did not deny their
the Cadet Corps by declaring that they did not tolerate Cadet 1 CL
existence but they refused to present them for the parties and the
Cudia's honor violation and breach of confindentiality of the HC
Court to peruse. In particular, they note that the Minutes of the HC
proceedings.
dated January 21, 2014 and the HC Formal Investigation Report dated
January 20, 2014 were considered by the CRAB but were not furnished
to petitioners and the Court; hence, there is no way to confirm the More importantly, respondents add that it is highly improbable and
truth of the alleged statements therein. In their view, failure to furnish unlikely that Cadet 1 CL Cudia was ostracized by his fellow cadets.
these documents could only mean that it would be adverse if produced They manifest that as early as January 22, 2014, he was already
pursuant to Section 3 (e), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court.172 transferred to the Holding Center. The practice of billeting an accused
cadet at the Holding Center is provided for in the Honor Code
Handbook. Although within the PMA compound, the Holding Center is
For lack of legal basis on PMA' s claim of confidentiality of records,
off-limits to cadets who do not have any business to conduct therein.
petitioners contend that it is the ministerial duty of the HC to submit to
The cadets could not also ostracize him during mess times since Cadet
the CRAB, for the conduct of intelligent review of the case, all its
1 CL Cudia opted to take his meals at the Holding Center. The
records of the proceedings, including video footages of the
circumstances obtaining when Special Order No. 1 was issued clearly
deliberations and voting. They likewise argue that PMA' s refusal to
foreclose the possibility that he was ostracized in common areas
release relevant documents to Cadet 1 CL Cudia under the guise of
accessible to other cadets. He remained in the Holding Center until
confidentiality reveals another misapplication of the Honor Code, which
March 16, 2014 when he voluntarily left the PMA. Contrary to his
merely provides: "A cadet who becomes part of any investigation is
claim, guests were also free to visit him in the Holding Center.
subject to the existing regulations pertaining to rules of confidentiality
and, therefore, must abide to the creed of secrecy. Nothing shall be
disclosed without proper guidance from those with authority" (IV. The However, petitioners swear that Cadet 1 CL Cudia suffered from
Honor System, Honor Committee, Cadet Observer). This provision, ostracism in the PMA. The practice was somehow recognized by
they say, does not deprive Cadet 1 CL Cudia of his right to obtain respondents in their Consolidated Comment and by PMA Spokesperson
copies and examine relevant documents pertaining to his case. Maj. Flores in a news report. The CHR likewise confirmed the same in
its Resolution dated May 22, 2014. For them, it does not matter where
the ostracism order originated from because the PMA appeared to

25
sanction it even if it came from the cadets themselves. There was a was suspiciously delayed when the Cudia family received the same
tacit approval of an illegal act. If not, those cadets responsible for only on March 20, 2014. Moreover, it fell short in laying down with
ostracism would have been charged by the PMA officials. Finally, it is specificity the factual and legal bases used by the CRAB and even by
claimed that Cadet 1 CL Cudia did not choose to take his meals at the the Office of the Adjutant General. There remains no proof that the
Holding Center as he was not allowed to leave the place. Petitioners CRAB and the PMA considered the evidence presented by Cadet 1 CL
opine that placing the accused cadet in the Holding Center is Cudia, it being uncertain as to what evidence was weighed by the
inconsistent with his or her presumed innocence and certainly gives CRAB, whether the same is substantial, and whether the new evidence
the implication of ostracism. submitted by him was ever taken into account.

We agree with respondents. Neither the petition nor the petition- In refutation, respondents allege the existence of PMA's· practice of
inintervention attached a full text copy or even a pertinent portion of orally declaring the HC finding, not putting it in a written document so
the alleged Special Order No. 1, which authorized the ostracism of as to protect the integrity of the erring cadet and guard the
Cadet 1 CL Cudia. Being hearsay, its existence and contents are of confidentiality of the HC proceedings pursuant to the Honor System.
doubtful veracity. Hence, a definite ruling on the matter can never be Further, they aver that a copy of the report of the CRAB, dated March
granted in this case. 10, 2014, was not furnished to Cadet 1 CL Cudia because it was his
parents who filed the appeal, hence, were the ones who were given a
copy thereof.
The Court cannot close its eyes though on what appears to be an
admission of Cadet 1 CL Mogol during the CHR hearing that, upon
consultation with the entire class, the baron, and the Cadet Conduct Petitioners' contentions have no leg to stand on. While there is a
Policy Board, they issued an ostracism order against Cadet 1 CL constitutional mandate stating that "[no] decision shall be rendered by
Cudia.174 While not something new in a military academy, 175 ostracism's any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts
continued existence in the modem times should no longer be and the law on which it is based,"179 such provision does not apply in
countenanced. There are those who argue that the "silence" is a Cadet 1 CL Cudia's case. Neither Guzman nor Andrews require a
punishment resulting in the loss of private interests, primarily that of specific form and content of a decision issued in disciplinary
reputation, and that such penalty may render illusory the possibility of proceedings. The Honor Code and Honor System Handbook also has
vindication by the reviewing body once found guilty by the no written rule on the matter. Even if the provision applies, nowhere
HC.176 Furthermore, in Our mind, ostracism practically denies the does it demand that a point-by-point consideration and resolution of
accused cadet's protected rights to present witnesses or evidence in the issues raised by the parties are necessary.180 What counts is that,
his or her behalf and to be presumed innocent until finally proven albeit furnished to him late, Cadet 1 CL Cudia was informed of how it
otherwise in a proper proceeding. was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that
led to the conclusions of the reviewing body, assuring that it went
through the processes of legal reasoning. He was not left in the dark
As to Cadet 1 CL Cudia's stay in the Holding Center, the Court upholds
as to how it was reached and he knows exactly the reasons why he
the same. The Honor Code and Honor System Handbook provides that,
lost, and is able to pinpoint the possible errors for review.
in case a cadet has been found guilty by the HC of violating the Honor
Code and has opted not to resign, he or she may stay and wait for the
disposition of the case. In such event, the cadet is not on full-duty As to the blind adoption of the HC findings –
status and shall be billeted at the HTG Holding Center.177 Similarly, in
the U.S., the purpose of "Boarders Ward" is to quarter those cadets
Petitioners assert that, conformably with Sections 30 and 31 of C.A.
who are undergoing separation actions. Permitted to attend classes,
No. 1, only President Aquino as the Commander-in-Chief has the
the cadet is sequestered , therein until final disposition of the case. In
power to appoint and remove a cadet for a valid/legal cause. The law
Andrews, it was opined that the segregation of cadets in the Ward was
gives no authority to the HC as the sole body to determine the guilt or
a proper exercise of the discretionary authority of Academy officials. It
innocence of a cadet. It also does not empower the PMA to adopt the
relied on the traditional doctrine that "with respect to decisions made
guilty findings of the HC as a basis for recommending the cadet's
by Army authorities, 'orderly government requires us to tread lightly on
dismissal. In the case of Cadet 1 CL Cudia, it is claimed that the PMA
the military domain, with scrupulous regard for the power and
blindly followed the HC's finding of guilt in terminating his military
authority of the military establishment to govern its own affairs within
service.
the broad confines of constitutional due process.'" Also, in Birdwell v.
Schlesinger,178 the "administrative segregation" was held to be a
reasonable exercise of military discipline and could not be considered Further, it is the ministerial duty of the CRAB to conduct a review de
an invasion of the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of nova of all records without requiring Cadet 1 CL Cudia to submit new
association. evidence if it is physically impossible for him to do so. In their minds,
respondents cannot claim that the CRAB and the PMA thoroughly
reviewed the HC recommendation and heard Cadet lCL Cudia's side. As
Late and vague decisions –
clearly stated in the letter from the Office of the AFP Adjutant General,
"[in] its report dated March 10, 2014, PMA CRAB sustained the findings
It is claimed that Cadet 1 CL Cudia was kept in the dark as to the and recommendations of the Honor Committee x x x It also resolved
charge against him and the decisions arrived at by the HC, the CRAB, the appeal filed by the subject Cadet." However, the Final
and the PMA. No written decision was furnished to him, and if any, the Investigation Report of the CRAB was dated March 23, 2014. While
information was unjustly belated and the justifications for the decisions such report states that a report was submitted to the AFP General
were vague. He had to constantly seek clarification and queries just to Headquarters on March 10, 2014 and that it was only on March 12,
be apprised of what he was confronted with. 2014 that it was designated as a Fact-Finding Board/Investigating
Body, it is unusual that the CRAB would do the same things twice. This
raised a valid and well-grounded suspicion that the CRAB never
Petitioners relate that upon being informed of the "guilty" verdict,
undertook an in-depth investigation/review the first time it came out
Cadet 1 CL Cudia immediately inquired as to the grounds therefor, but
with its report, and the Final Investigation Report was drafted merely
Cadet 1 CL Mogol answered that it is confidential since he would still
as an afterthought when the lack of written decision was pointed out
appeal the same. By March 11, 2014, Maj. Gen. Lopez informed Cadet
by petitioners so as to remedy the apparent lack of due process during
1 CL Cudia that the CRAB already forwarded their recommendation for
the CRAB investigation and review.
his dismissal to the General Headquarters sometime in February-March
2014. Even then, he received no decision/recommendation on his case,
verbally or in writing. The PMA commencement exercises pushed Despite the arguments, respondents assure that there was a proper
through with no written decision from the CRAB or the PMA on his assessment of the procedural and legal correctness of the guilty
appeal. The letter from the Office of the Adjutant General of the AFP verdict against Cadet 1 CL Cudia. They assert that the higher

26
authorities of the PMA did not merely rely on the findings of the HC, Further, no sufficient prior notice of the scheduled CRAB hearing was
noting that there was also a separate investigation conducted by the given to Cadet I CL Cudia, his family, or his PAO counsel. During one
HTG from January 25 to February 7, 2014. Likewise, contrary to the of her visits to him in the Holding Center, petitioner-intervenor was
contention of petitioners that the CRAB continued with the review of advised to convince his son to resign and immediately leave the PMA.
the case despite the absence of necessary documents, the CRAB Brig. Gen. Costales, who later became the CRAB Head, also
conducted its own review of the case and even conducted another categorically uttered to Annavee: "Your brother, he lied!" The CRAB
investigation by constituting the Fact-Finding Board/Investigating conferences were merely used to formalize his dismissal and the PMA
Body. For respondents, petitioners failed to discharge the burden of never really intended to hear his side. For petitioners, these are
proof in showing bad faith on the part of the PMA. In the absence of manifestations of PMA's clear resolve to dismiss him no matter what.
evidence to the contrary and considering further that petitioners'
allegations are merely self-serving and baseless, good faith on the part
For their part, respondents contend that the CllR's allegation that Maj.
of the PMA' s higher authorities is presumed and should, therefore,
Hindang acted in obvious bad faith and that he failed to discharge his
prevail.
duty to be a good father of cadets when he "paved the road to [Cadet
1 CL Cudia's] sham trial by the Honor Committee" is an unfounded
We agree with respondents. accusation. They note that when Maj. Hindang was given the DR of
Cadet 1 CL Cudia, he revoked the penalty awarded because of his
explanation. However, all revocations of awarded penalties are subject
The Honor Committee, acting on behalf of the Cadet Corps, has a
to the review of the STO. Therefore, it was at the instance of Maj.
limited role of investigating and determining whether or not the
Leander and the established procedure followed at the PMA that Maj.
alleged offender has actually violated the Honor Code. 181 It is given the
Hindang was prompted to investigate the circumstances surrounding
responsibility of administering the Honor Code and, in case of breach,
Cadet 1 CL Cudia's tardiness. Respondents add that bad faith cannot
its task is entirely investigative, examining in the first instance a
likewise be imputed against Maj. Hindang by referring to the actions
suspected violation. As a means of encouraging self-discipline, without
taken by Maj. Jekyll Dulawan, the CTO of Cadets 1 CL Narciso and
ceding to it any authority to make final adjudications, the Academy has
Arcangel who also arrived late for their next class. Unlike the other
assigned it the function of identifying suspected violators.182 Contrary
cadets, Cadet 1 CL Cudia did not admit his being late and effectively
to petitioners' assertion, the HC does not have the authority to order
evaded responsibility by ascribing his tardiness to Dr. Costales.
the separation of a cadet from the Academy. The results of its
proceedings are purely recommendatory and have no binding effect.
The HC determination is somewhat like an indictment, an allegation, As to the CHR' s finding that Cadet 1 CL Mogol was likewise "in bad
which, in Cadet 1 CL Cudia's case, the PMA-CRAB investigated de faith and determined to destroy [Cadet 1 CL] Cudia, for reasons of his
novo.183 In the U.S., it was even opined that due process safeguards own" because the former previously reported the latter for an honor
do not actually apply at the Honor Committee level because it is only a violation in November 2013, respondents argue that the bias ascribed
"charging body whose decisions had no effect other than to initiate de against him is groundless as there is failure to note that Cadet 1 CL
nova proceedings before a Board of Officers."184 Mogol was a non-voting member of the HC. Further, he cannot be
faulted for reporting a possible honor violation since he is the HC
Chairman and nothing less is expected of him. Respondents emphasize
Granting, for argument's sake, that the HC is covered by the due
that the representatives of the HC are elected from each company,
process clause and that irregularities in its proceedings were in fact
while the HC Chairman is elected by secret ballot from the incoming
committed, still, We cannot rule for petitioners. It is not required that
first class representatives. Thus, if Cadet 1 CL Cu'dia believed that
procedural due process be afforded at every stage of developing
there was bias against him, he should have resorted to the procedure
disciplinary action. What is required is that an adequate hearing be
for the removal of HC members provided for in the Honor Code
held before the final act of dismissing a cadet from the military
Handbook.
academy.185 In the case of Cadet 1 CL Cudia, the OIC of HC, the SJA,
the Commandant of Cadets, and the PMA Superintendent reviewed the
HC findings. A separate investigation was also conducted by the HTG. Finally, respondents declare that there is no reason or ill-motive on the
Then, upon the directive of the AFP-GHQ to reinvestigate the case, a part of the PMA to prevent Cadet 1 CL Cudia from graduating because
review was conducted by the CRAB. Finally, a Fact-Finding the Academy does not stand to gain anything from his dismissal. On
Board/Investigating Body composed of the CRAB members and the the contrary, in view of his academic standing, the separation militates
PMA senior officers was constituted to conduct a deliberate against PMA' s mission to produce outstanding, honorable, and
investigation of the case. The Board/Body actually held hearings on exceptional cadets.
March 12, 13, 14 and 20, 2014. Instead of commendation, petitioners
find it "unusual" that the CRAB would do the same things twice and
The Court differs with petitioners.
suspect that it never undertook an in-depth investigation/review the
first time it came out with its report. Such assertion is mere conjecture
that deserves scant consideration. Partiality, like fraudulent intent, can never be presumed. Absent some
showing of actual bias, petitioners' allegations do not hold water. The
mere imputation of ill-motive without proof is speculative at best.
As to the dismissal proceedings as sham trial –
Kolesa teaches us that to sustain the challenge, specific evidence must
be presented to overcome
According to petitioners, the proceedings before the HC were a sham.
The people behind Cadet ICL Cudia's charge, investigation, and
a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as
conviction were actually the ones who had the intent to deceive and
adjudicators; and it must convince that, under a realistic appraisal of
who took advantage of the situation. Cadet 1 CL Raguindin, who was a
psychological tendencies and human weaknesses, conferring
senior HC member and was the second in rank to Cadet 1 CL Cudia in
investigative and adjudicative powers on the same individual poses
the Navy cadet 1 CL, was part of the team which conducted the
such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be
preliminary investigation. Also, Cadet I CL Mogol, the HC Chairman,
forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be implemented.187
previously charged Cadet 1 CL Cudia with honor violation allegedly for
cheating (particularly, conniving with and tutoring his fellow cadets on
a difficult topic by giving solutions to a retake exam) but the charge Although a CTO like Maj. Hindang must decide whether demerits are
was dismissed for lack of merit. Even if he was a non-voting member, to be awarded, he is not an adversary of the cadet but an educator
he was in a position of influence and authority. Thus, it would be a who shares an identity of interest with the cadet, whom he counsels
futile exercise for Cadet 1 CL Cudia to resort to the procedure for the from time to time as a future leader.188 When the occasion calls for it,
removal of HC members.186 cadets may be questioned as to the accuracy or completeness of a
submitted work. A particular point or issue may be clarified. In this
case, the question asked of Cadet 1 CL Cudia concerning his being late

27
in class is proper, since there is evidence indicating that a breach of It is claimed that the HC gravely abused its discretion when it
regulation may have occurred and there is reasonable cause to believe committed voting manipulation since, under the rules, it is required to
that he was involved in the breach of regulations.189 have a unanimous nine (9) votes finding an accused cadet guilty.
There is nothing in the procedure that permits the HC Chairman to
order the "chambering" of a member who voted contrary to the
For lack of actual proof of bad faith or ill-motive, the Court shall rely
majority and subjects him or her to reconsider in order to reflect a
on the non-toleration clause of the Honor Code, i.e., "We do not
unanimous vote. Neither is there an order from the Chief of Staff or
tolerate those who violate the Code." Cadets are reminded that they
the President sanctioning the HC procedure or approving any change
are charged with a tremendous duty far more superior to their
therein pursuant to Sections 30 and 31 of C.A. No. 1. The HC, the
personal feeling or friendship.190 They must learn to help others by
CRAB, and the PMA violated their own rules and principles as
guiding them to accept the truth and do what is right, rather than
embodied in the Honor Code. Being a clear deviation from the
tolerating actions against truth and justice.191 Likewise, cadets are
established procedures, the second deliberation should be considered
presumed to be characteristically honorable; they cannot overlook or
null and void.
arbitrarily ignore the dishonorable action of their peers, seniors, or
subordinates.192 These are what Cadet 1 CL Mogol exactly did,
although he was later proven to have erred in his accusation. Note Petitioners further contend that the requirement of unanimous vote
that even the Honor Code and Honor System Handbook recognizes involves a substantive right which cannot be unceremoniously changed
that interpretation of one's honor is generally subjective.193 without a corresponding amendment/revision in the Honor Code and
Honor System Handbook. In their view, "chambering" totally defeats
the purpose of voting by secret ballot as it glaringly destroys the very
Moreover, assuming, for the sake of argument, that Cadets 1 CL'
essence and philosophy behind the provisions of the Honor System,
Raguindin and Mogol as well as Brig. Gen. Costales have an axe to
which is to ensure that the voting member is free to vote what is in his
grind against Cadet 1 CL Cudia and were bent on causing, no matter
or her heart and mind and that no one can pressure or persuade
what, the latter's downfall, their nefarious conduct would still be
another to change his or her vote. They suggest that if one voting
insignificant. This is so since the HC (both the preliminary and formal
member acquits an accused cadet who is obviously guilty of the
investigation), the CRAB, and the Fact-Finding Board/Investigating
offense, the solution is to remove him or her from the HC through the
Body are collegial bodies. Hence, the claim that the
vote of non-confidence as provided for in the Honor Code.195 Anent the
proceedings/hearings conducted were merely a farce because the
above arguments, respondents contend that a distinction must be
three personalities participated therein is tantamount to implying the
made between the concepts of the Honor Code and the Honor System.
existence of a conspiracy, distrusting the competence, independence,
According to them, the former sets the standard for a cadet's,
and integrity of the other members who constituted the majority.
minimum ethical and moral behavior and does not change, while the
Again, in the absence of specifics and substantial evidence, the Court
latter is a set of rules for the conduct of the observance and
cannot easily give credence to this baseless insinuation.
implementation of the· Honor Code and may undergo necessary
adjustments as may be warranted by the incumbent members of the
As to the HC executive session/chambering – HC in order to be more responsive to the moral training and character
development of the cadets. The HC may provide guidelines when the
Petitioners narrate that there was an irregular administrative hearing in Honor System can be used to supplement regulations. This being so,
the case of Cadet 1 CL Cudia because two voting rounds took place. the voting process is continuously subject to change.
After the result of the secret balloting, Cadet 1 CL Mogol ordered the
voting members to go to a room without the cadet recorders. Therein, Respondents note that, historically, a non-unanimous guilty verdict
the lone dissenter, Cadet lCL Lagura, was asked to explain his "not automatically acquits a cadet from the charge of Honor violation. The
guilty" vote. Pressured to change his vote, he was made to cast a new voting members only write either "guilty" or "not guilty" in the voting
one finding Cadet 1 CL Cudia guilty. The original ballot was discarded sheets without stating their name or their justification. However, this
and replaced. There was no record of the change in vote from 8-1 to situation drew criticisms since there were instances where a reported
9-0 that was mentioned in the HC formal report. cadet already admitted his honor violation but was acquitted due to
the lone vote of a sympathetic voting member.
The Affidavit of Commander Junjie B. Tabuada executed on March 6,
2014 was submitted by petitioners since he purportedly recalled Cadet In the case of Cadet 1 CL Cudia, the HC adopted an existing practice
1 CL Lagura telling him that he was pressured to change his "not that should the voting result in 7-2 or 8-1 the HC would automatically
guilty" vote after the voting members were "chambered." In the sworn sanction a jury type of discussion called "executive session" or
statement, Commander Tabuada said: "chambering," which is intended to elicit the explanation and insights
of the voting member/s. This prevents the tyranny of the minority or
1. That after CDT lCL CUDIA [was] convicted for honor lone dissenter from prevailing over the manifest proof of guilt. The
violation, I [cannot] remember exactly the date but assailed voting practice has been adopted and widely accepted by the
sometime in the morning of 23rd or 24th of January 2014, I PMA Siklab Diwa Class of 2014 since their first year in the Academy.
was in my office filling up forms for the renewal of my The allegations of conspiracy and sham trial are, therefore, negated by
passport, CDT 1CL LAGURA entered and had business with the fact that such practice was in place and applied to all cases of
my staff; honor violations, not solely to the case of Cadet 1CL Cudia.

2. When he was about to leave I called him. "Lags, halika It is emphasized by respondents that any decision to change vote rests
muna dito," and he approached me and I let him sit down solely on the personal conviction of the dissenter/s, without any
on the chair in front of my table. I told and asked him, compulsion from the other voting members. There can also be no
"Talagang nadali si Cudia ah ... ano ha ang nangyari? Mag- pressuring to change one's vote to speak of since a vote may only be
Tagalog or mag-Bisaya ka." He replied, "Talagang NOT considered as final when the Presiding Officer has affixed his
GUILTY ang vote ko sa kanya sir", and I asked him, "Oh, signature.
bakit naging guilty di ha pag may isang nag NOT GUILTY,
abswelto na? He replied "Chinamber ako sir, bale pinapa- To debunk Commander Tabuada's statements, respondents raise the
justify kung bakit NOT GUILTY vote ko, at na-pressure din argument that the Fact-Finding Board/Investigating Body summoned
ako sir kaya binago ko, sir." So, I told him, "Sayang sya, Cadet 1 CL Lagura for inquiry. Aside from his oral testimony made
matalino at mabait pa naman" and he replied "oo nga sir". under oath, he submitted to the Board/Body an affidavit explaining
After that conversation, I let him go.194 that:

28
11. Sometime on 23rd or 24th of January 2014, I went to the Arlegui and Cdt Mogol. That was the last time that Cdt Cudia
Department of Naval Warfare to ask permission if it is possible not to and Cdt Jocson talked to me.
attend the Navy duty for the reason that I will be attending our
baseball game outside the Academy.
11. Sometime on 23rd or 24th of January 2014, I went to
the Department of Naval Warfare to asked (sic) permission if
12. After I was permitted not to attend my Navy Duty and when I was it is possible not to attend the Navy duty for the reason that
about to exit out of the Office, CDR JUNJIE B T ABU ADA PN, our Head I will be attending our baseball game outside the Academy.
Department Naval Warfare Officer, called my attention. I approached
him and he said: "Talagang nadali si Cudia ah. Ano ba talaga ang
12. After I was permitted not to attend my Navy Duty and
nangyari?" At first, I was hesitant to answer because of the
when I was about to exit out of the Office, CDR JUNJIE B
confidentiality of the Honor Committee proceedings. He again said:
TABUADA PN, our Head Department Naval Warfare Officer,
"Wag kang mag-alala, atin, atin lang ito, alam ko naman na bawal
called my attention. I approached him and he said:
magsabi." Then I answered: "Ako yung isang not guilty Sir. Kaya
"Talagang nadali si Cudia ah. Ano ba talaga ang nangyari?"
[yung] Presiding Officer nagsabi na pumunta muna kami sa Chamber.
At first, I was hesitant to answer because of the
Nung nasa chamber kami, nagsalita [yung] mga nagvote ng Guilty
confidentiality of the Honor Committee proceedings. He
tapos isa-isa nagsabi kung bakit ang boto nila Guilty. Nung pakinggan
again said: "Wag kang mag-alala, atin, atin lang ito, alam ko
ko, eh naliwanagan ako. Pinalitan ko yung boto ko from Not Guilty to
naman na bawal magsabi. " Then I answered: "Ako yung
Guilty Sir." He replied: "Sayang si Cudia ano?" And I said: "Oo nga sir,
isang not guilty Sir. Kaya [yung} Presiding Officer nagsabi na
[s]ayang si Cudia, mabait pa naman at matalino."196
pumunta muna kami sa Chamher. Nung nasa chamber kami,
nagsalita [yung] mga nagvote ng Guilty tapos isa-isa nagsabi
Cadet 1 CL Lagura restated the above in the Counter-Affidavit kung bakit ang boto nila Guilty. Nung pakinggan ko, eh
executed on March 12, 2014, which he submitted before the CHR naliwanagan aka. Pinalitan ko yung boto ko from Not Guilty
wherein he attested to the following: to Guilty Sir. " He replied: "Sayang si Cudia ano?" And I said:
"Oo nga sir, [s]ayang si Cudia, mabait pa naman at
matalino. "197
3. I was chosen to be a voting member of the Honor
Committee for Honor Code violation committed by Cadet
Cudia, for "lying". As a voting member, we are the one who Still not to be outdone, petitioners argue that the very fact that Cadet
assess or investigate the case whether the reported Cadet is 1 CL Lagura, as the lone dissenter, was made to explain in the
Guilty for his actions or not. presence of other HC members, who were in disagreement with him,
gives a semblance of intimidation, force, or pressure. For them, the
records of the HC proceedings, which were not presented assuming
4. I was the only one who INITIALLY voted "NOT GUILTY"
they actually exist, could have been the best way to ensure that he
among the nine (9) voting members of the Honor Committee
was free to express his views, reject the opinion of the majority, and
in the case of Cdt Cudia for Lying.
stick to his decision. Also, it was pointed out that Cadet 1 CL Lagura
failed to clearly explain in his affidavit why he initially found Cadet 1 CL
5. I initially voted "NOT GUILTY" for the reason that after Cudia "not guilty" and what made him change his mind. His use of
the proceedings and before the presiding Officer told the general statements like he "was confused of the case " and "saw
members to vote, I was confused of the case of Cadet things that enlightened my confusions " could hardly suffice to
Cudia. I have gathered some facts from the investigation to establish why he changed his vote. Finally, petitioners note the
make my decision but for me it is not yet enough to give my admission of ·Cadet 1 CL Lagura during the CHR investigation that he
verdict of guilty to Cdt Cudia so I decided to vote "NOT was the only one who was given another ballot sheet while in the
GUILTY" with a reservation in my mind that we will still be chamber and that he accomplished it in the barracks which he only
discussing our verdicts if we will arrive at 8-1 or 7-2. Thus, I submitted the following day. However, as the CHR found, the
can still change my vote if I may be enlightened with the announcement of the 9-0 vote was done immediately after the HC
other's justifications. came out from the chamber and before Cadet 1 CL Lagura submitted
his accomplished ballot sheet.
6. After the votes were collected, the Presiding Officer told
us that the vote is 8 for guilty and 1 for not guilty. By way of We rule for respondents.
practice and as I predicted, we were told to go inside the
anteroom for executive meeting and to discuss our
As to the manner of voting by the HC members, the Honor Code
respective justifications. I have been a member for two (2)
tersely provides:
years and the voting committee will always go for executive
meeting whenever it will meet 8-1 or 7-2 votes.
After a thorough discussion and deliberation, the presiding member of
the Board will call for the members to vote whether the accused is
7. I listened to them and they listened to me, then I saw
GUILTY or NOT GUILTY. A unanimous vote (9 votes) of GUILTY
things that enlightened my confusions that time. I gave a
decides that a cadet is found guilty of violating the Honor Code.198
thumbs-up sign and asked for another sheet of voting paper.
I then changed my vote from "NOT GUILTY" to "GUILTY"
and the voting members of the Honor Committee came up From the above-quoted provision, it readily appears that the HC
with the final vote of nine (9) votes for guilty and zero (0) practice of conducting "executive session" or "chambering" is not at all
votes for not guilty. prohibited. The HC is given leeway on the voting procedures in' actual
cases taking into account the exigency of the times. What is important
is that, in the end, there must be a unanimous nine votes in order to
9. Cdt Cudia was called inside the courtroom and told that
hold a cadet guilty of violating the Honor Code.
the verdict was GUILTY of LYING. After that, all persons
inside the courtroom went back to barracks.
Granting, for argument's sake, that the HC violated its written
procedure,199 We still rule that there is nothing inherently wrong with
10. Right after I changed to sleeping uniform, I was
the practice of "chambering" considering that the presence of
approached by Cdt Jocson and Cdt Cudia, inquiring and said:
intimidation or force cannot automatically be inferred therefrom. The
"Bakit ka naman nagpalit ng boto? ., I answered: "Nasa
essence of secret balloting and the freedom to vote based on what is
process yan, may mali talaga sa rason mo." They also asked
in the heart and mind of the voting member is not necessarily diluted
who were inside the Chamber and I mentioned only Cdt

29
by the fact that a second/final voting was conducted. As explained by Relative to his explanation to the delinquency report, petitioners were
Cadet 1CL Mogol before the CRAB: of the view that what appears to have caused confusion in the minds
of respondents is just a matter of semantics; that the entire incident
was a product of inaccuracy, not lying. It is malicious for them to
13. x x x [The] dissenting voter would have to explain his side and
insinuate that Cadet 1 CL Cudia purposely used incorrect language to
insights regarding the case at hand. The other members, on the other
hide the truth. Citing Merriam Webster's Dictionary, petitioners argue
hand, would be given the chance to explain their votes as well as their
that "dismiss" means to permit or cause to leave, while "class" refers
insights to the dissenting voter. The decision to change the vote of the
to a body of students meeting regularly to study the same subject.
dissenting voter rests solely on his personal conviction. Thus, if he [or
According to them, these two words do not have definite and precise
she] opted not to change his/her vote despite the discussion, his [or
meanings but are generic terms. Other than the words "class" and
her] vote is accorded respect by the Honor Committee.200
"dismiss" used by Cadet 1 CL Cudia, which may actually be used in
their generic sense, there is nothing deceiving about what he said.
It is elementary that intimidation or force is never presumed. Mere Thus, the answer he chose might be wrong or not correct, but it is not
allegation is definitely not evidence.1âwphi1 It must be substantiated false or not true.
and proved because a person is presumed to be innocent of a crime or
wrong and that official duty has been regularly performed.201
For petitioners, Cadet lCL Cudia's explanations are evidently truthful
and with no intent to deceive or mislead. He did not manipulate any
The oral and written statements of Cadet 1 CL Lagura should settle the fact and was truthful of his explanation. His .. statements were clear
issue. Before the Fact-Finding Board/Investigating Body and the CHR, and unambiguous but were given a narrow-minded interpretation.
he consistently denied that he was pressured by the other voting Even the Honor Code acknowledges that "[e]xperience demonstrates
members of the HC. His representation must be accepted as it is that human communication is imperfect at best, and some actions are
regardless of whether he has satisfactorily elaborated his decision to often misinterpreted."
change his vote. Being the one who was "chambered," he is more
credible to clarify the issue. In case of doubt, We have to rely on the
Lastly, petitioners contend that Cadet 1 CL Cudia's transcript of records
faith that Cadet 1 CL Lagura observed the Honor Code, which clearly
reflects not only his outstanding academic performance but proves his
states that every cadet must be his or her own Final' Authority in
good conduct during his four-year stay in the Academy. He has above-
honor; that he or she should not let other cadets dictate on him or her
average grades in Conduct, with grades ranging from 96 to 100 in
their sense of honor.202 Moreover, the Code implies that any person
Conduct I to XI. His propensity to lie is, therefore, far from the truth.
can have confidence that a cadet and any graduate of the PMA will be
fair and just in dealing with him; that his actions, words and ways are
sincere and true.203 On the other hand, respondents were equally adamant to contend that
Cadet 1 CL Cudia was obviously quibbling, which, in the military
parlance, is tantamount to lying. He fell short in telling a simple truth.
As to the other alleged "irregularities" committed such as not putting
He lied by making untruthful statements in his written explanation.
on record the initial/first voting and Cadet 1CL Lagura's bringing of his
Respondents want Us to consider the following:
ballot sheet to and accomplishing it in the barracks, the Court shall no
longer dwell on the same for being harmless procedural errors that do
not materially affect the validity of the HC proceedings. First, their OR432 class was not dismissed late. During the formal
investigation, Dr. Costales testified that a class is dismissed as long as
the instructor is not there and the bell has rung. In cases of lesson
Cadet 1 CL Cudia 's alleged untruthful statements
examinations (LE), cadets are dismissed from the time they have
answered their respective LEs. Here, as Cadet Cudia stated in his
Petitioners insist that Cadet 1 CL Cudia did not lie. According to them, Request for Reconsideration of Meted Punishment, "We had an LE that
there is no clear time reference as to when was the actual dismissal or day (14 November 2013) in OR432 class. When the first bell rang
what was the exact time of dismissal - whether it should be the (1455), I stood up, reviewed my paper and submitted it to my
dismissal inside the room or the dismissal after the section grade was instructor, Ms. Costales. xxx" Clearly, at the time Cadet Cudia
given by Dr. Costales -in the minds of Cadet 1 CL Cudia, Maj. Hindang, submitted his papers, he was already considered dismissed. Thus, he
and the HC investigators and voting members. They claim that during cannot claim that his [OR432] class ended at 3:00 in the afternoon
long examinations, the time of dismissal was usually five minutes (1500H) or "a bit late."
before the class was set to end and the protocol of dismissing the class
15 minutes earlier was not observed. When Maj. Hindang stated in
Second, Cadet Cudia was in control of the circumstances leading to his
accusatory language that Cadet 1 CL Cudia perverted the truth by
tardiness. After submitting his paper, Cadet Cudia is free to leave and
stating that OR432 class ended at 1500H, he did not state what was
attend his next class. However, he initiated a conversation with Dr.
the true time of dismissal. He did not mention whether the truth he
Costales regarding their grades. He was not under instruction by Dr.
was relying on was 5 or 15 minutes before the scheduled end of class.
Costales to stay beyond the period of her class.

It is also averred that Cadet 1 CL Cudia's only business was to ask Dr.
Furthermore, during the investigation of the Fact-Finding
Costales a query such that his business was already finished as soon
Board/Investigating Body, Dr. Costales clarified her statements in her
as she gave an answer. However, a new business was initiated by Dr.
written explanation. She explained that the "instruction to wait" is a
Costales, which is, Cadet 1 CL Cudia must stay and wait for the section
response to Cadet Cudia' s request and that it was not her initiated
grade. At that point in time, he was no longer in control of the
instruction. Clearly, there was no directive from Dr. Costales for Cadet
circumstances. Petitioners claim that Dr. Costales never categorically
Cudia and the other cadets to stay. On the contrary, it was them who
stated that Cadet lCL Cudia was lying. She recognized the confusion.
wanted to meet with the instructor. Third, contrary to Cadet Cudia's
Her text messages to him clarified his alleged violation. Also, the CHR
explanation, his subsequent class, ENG412, did not exactly start at
noted during its investigation that she could not exactly recall what
3:00 in the afternoon (1500H). In the informal review conducted by
happened in her class on November 14, 2013.
the HTG to check the findings of the HC, Professor Berong confirmed
that her English class started as scheduled (3:05 in the afternoon, or
Furthermore, petitioners reasoned out that when respondents stated 1505H) and not earlier. Cadet 1 CL Barrawed, the acting class marcher
that ENG412 class started at 3:05 p.m., it proves that Cadet 1 CL of ENG412 also testified that their class started as scheduled (3 :05 in
Cudia was obviously not late. If, as indicated in his Delinquency the afternoon, or 1505) and not earlier.204
Report, he was late two (2) minutes in his 1500-1600H class in ENG
412, he must have arrived 3:02 p.m. Respondents, however, claim
Respondents were unimpressed with the excuse that Cadet 1 CL Cudia
that the class started at 3:05 p.m. Thus, Cadet 1 CL Cudia was not
had no intention to mislead or deceive but merely used wrong and
late.

30
unfitting words in his explanations. For them, considering his academic 2. The intent pertinent to it.
standing, it is highly improbable that he used incorrect language to
justify his mistake. Respondents' arguments are tenable.
Intent does not only refer to the intent to violate the Honor Code, but
intent to commit or omit the act itself.209
The issue of whether Cadet 1 CL Cudia committed lying is an issue of
fact. Unfortunately for petitioners, the Court, not being a trier of facts,
The basic questions a cadet must always seek to answer unequivocally
cannot pass upon factual matters as it is not duty-bound to analyze
are:
and weigh again the evidence considered in the proceedings below.
Moreover, We reiterate the long standing rule that factual findings of
administrative tribunals are ordinarily accorded respect if not finality by 1. Do I intend to deceive?
the Court. In this case, as shown in the previous discussions, there is
no evidence that the findings of the investigating and reviewing bodies 2. Do I intend to take undue advantage?
below are not supported by evidence or vitiated by fraud, imposition or
collusion; that the procedure which led to the findings is irregular; that
palpable errors were committed; or that a grave abuse of discretion, If a cadet can answer NO to BOTH questions, he or she is doing the
arbitrariness, or capriciousness is manifest. With respect to the core honorable thing.210
issue of whether lying is present in this case, all investigating and
reviewing bodies are in consonance in holding that Cadet 1 CL Cudia in Intent, being a state of mind, is rarely susceptible of direct proof, but
truth and in fact lied. must ordinarily be inferred from the facts, and therefore, can only be
proved by unguarded expressions, conduct and circumstances
For purposes of emphasis though, We shall supplement some points. generally.211 In this case, Cadet 1 CL Cudia's intent to deceive is
manifested from the very act of capitalizing on the use of the words
"dismiss" and "class." The truth of the matter is that the ordinary
As succinctly worded, the Honor Code of the Cadet Corps Armed usage of these two terms, in the context of an educational institution,
Forces of the Philippines (CCAFP) states: "We, the Cadets, do not lie, does not correspond to what Cadet 1 CL Cudia is trying to make it
cheat, steal, nor tolerate among us those who do. " appear. In that sense, the words are not generic and have definite and
precise meaning.
The First Tenet of the Honor-Code is "We do not lie. " Cadets violate
the Honor Code by lying if they make an oral or written statement By no stretch of the imagination can Cadets 1 CL Cudia, Miranda,
which is contrary to what is true or use doubtful information with the Arcangel, and Narciso already constitute a "class." The Court cannot
intent to deceive or mislead.205 It is expected that every cadet's word is agree that such term includes "every transaction and communication a
accepted without challenge on its truthfulness; that it is true without teacher does with her students." Clearly, it does not take too much
qualification; and that the cadets must answer directly, completely and intelligence to conclude that Cadet 1 CL Cudia should have been
truthfully even though the answer may result in punitive action under accurate by pinpointing who were with him when he was late in the
the CCPB and CCAFPR.206 next class. His deceptive explanation is made more obvious when
compared with what Cadets 1 CL Archangel and Narciso wrote in their
To refresh, in his Explanation of Report dated December 8, 2013, DR explanation, which was: "We approached our instructor after our
Cadet 1 CL Cudia justified that: "I came directly from OR432 Class. We class."212
were dismissed a bit late by our instructor Sir." Subsequently, in his
Request for Reconsideration of Meted Punishment to Maj. Leander, he Further, it is unimportant whether the time of dismissal on November
reasoned out as follows: 14, 2013 was five or fifteen minutes ahead of the scheduled end of
class. Worth noting is that even Dr. Costales, who stood as a witness
I strongly believe that I am not in control of the circumstances, our 4th for Cadet 1 CL Cudia, consistently admitted before the HC, the Fact-
period class ended 1500H and our 5th period class, which is ENG412, Finding Board/Investigating Body, and the CHR that he was already
started 1500H also. Immediately after 4t period class, I went to my dismissed when he passed his LE paper. 213 During the hearing of the
next class without any intention of being late Sir.207 Board/Body, she also declared that she merely responded to his
request to see the results of the UE 1 and that she had reservations on
the phrases "under my instruction" and "dismissed a bit late" used in
In this case, the Court agrees with respondents that Cadet 1 CL Cudia
his letter of explanation to the HC. In addition, Dr. Costales manifested
committed quibbling; hence, he lied in violation of the Honor Code.
her view before the CHR that the act of Cadet 1 CL Cudia of inquiring
about his grade outside their classroom after he submitted his LE
Following an Honor Reference Handbook, the term "Quibbling" has paper is not part of the class time because the consultation, being
been defined in one U.S. case as follows: cadet-initiated, is voluntary.214 Assuming, for the sake of argument,
that a new business was initiated by Dr. Costales when Cadet 1 CL
Cudia was asked to stay and wait for the section grade, still, this does
A person can easily create a false impression in the mind of his listener
not acquit him. Given such situation, a responsible cadet who is fully
by cleverly wording what he says, omitting relevant facts, or telling a
aware of the time constraint has the last say, that is, to politely decline
partial truth. When he knowingly does so with the intent to deceive or
the invitation and immediately go to the next class. This was not done
mislead, he is quibbling. Because it is an intentional deception,
by Cadet 1 CL Cudia. Thus, it cannot be said that he already lost
quibbling is a form of lying.208
control over the circumstances.

The above definition can be applied in the instant case. Here, instead
It is apparent, therefore, that Cadet 1 CL Cudia cunningly chose words
of directly and completely telling the cause of his being late in the
which led to confusion in the minds of respondents and eventually
ENG412 class of Prof. Berong, Cadet 1 CL Cudia chose to omit relevant
commenced the HC inquiry. His case is not just a matter of semantics
facts, thereby, telling a half-truth.
and a product of plain and simple inaccuracy. There is manipulation of
facts and presentation of untruthful explanation constitutive of Honor
The two elements that must be presented for a cadet to have Code violation.
committed an honor violation are:
Evidence of prior good conduct cannot clear Cadet 1 CL Cudia .. While
1. The act and/or omission, and his Transcript of Records (TOR) may reflect not only his outstanding
academic performance but his excellent grade in subjects on Conduct
during his four-year stay in the PMA,215 it does not necessarily follow

31
that he is innocent of the offense charged. It is enough to say that Petitioners contend that the PMA turned a blind eye on the CHR's
"evidence that one did or did not do a certain thing at one time is not recommendations. The CHR, they note, is a constitutional body
admissible to prove that he did or did not do the same or similar thing mandated by the 1987 Constitution to investigate all forms of human
at another time."216 While the TOR may be received to prove his rights violations involving civil and political rights, and to conduct
identity or habit as an exceptional PMA student, it does not show his investigative monitoring of economic, social, and cultural rights,
specific intent, plan, or scheme as cadet accused of committing a particularly of vulnerable sectors of society. Further, it was contended
specific Honor Code violation. that the results of CHR's investigation and recommendations are so
persuasive that this Court, on several occasions like in the cases of
Cruz v. Sec. of Environment & Natural Resources221 and Ang Ladlad
Dismissal from the PMA as unjust and cruel punishment
LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections,222 gave its findings serious
consideration. It is not, therefore, too late for the Court to hear what
Respondents insist that violation of the Honor Code warrants an independent and unbiased fact-finding body has to say on the case.
separation of the guilty cadet from the cadet corps. Under the Cadet
Corps Armed Forces of the Philippines Regulation (CCAFPR), a violation
In opposition, respondents assert that Simon, Jr. v. Commission on
of the Cadet Honor Code is considered Grave (Class 1) delinquency
Human Rights223 ruled that the CHR is merely a recommendatory body
which merits a recommendation for a cadet's dismissal from the PMA
that is not empowered to arrive at a conclusive determination of any
Superintendent. The same is likewise clear from the Honor Code and
controversy.
Honor System Handbook. Cadet 1 CL Cudia is, therefore, presumed to
know that the Honor Code does not accommodate a gradation or
degree of offenses. There is no difference between a little lie and a We are in accord with respondents.
huge falsehood. Respondents emphasize that the Honor Code has
always been considered as an absolute yardstick against which cadets
The findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the CHR are merely
have measured themselves ever since the PMA began and that the
recommendatory and, therefore, not binding to this Court. The reason
Honor Code and System seek to assure that only those who are able to
is that the CHR's constitutional mandate extends only to the
meet the high standards of integrity and honor are produced by the
investigation of all forms of human rights violations involving civil and
PMA. As held in Andrews, it is constitutionally permissible for the
political rights.224 As held in Cariño v. Commission on Human
military "to set and enforce uncommonly high standards of conduct
Rights225 and a number of subsequent cases,226 the CHR is only a fact-
and ethics. " Thus, in violating the Honor Code, Cadet 1 CL Cudia
finding body, not a court of justice or a quasi-judicial agency. It is not
forfeits his privilege to graduate from the PMA.
empowered to adjudicate claims on the merits or settle actual case or
controversies. The power to investigate is not the same as
On their part, petitioners concede that if it is proven that a cadet adjudication:
breached the Honor Code, the offense warrants his or her dismissal
since such a policy may be the only means to maintain and uphold the
The most that may be conceded to the Commission in the way of
spirit of integrity in the military.217 They maintain though that in Cadet
adjudicative power is that it may investigate, i.e., receive evidence and
1 CL Cudia's case there is no need to distinguish between a "little lie"
make findings of fact as regards claimed human rights violations
and a "huge falsehood" since he did not lie at all. Absent any intent to
involving civil and political rights. But fact-finding is not adjudication,
deceive and to take undue advantage, the penalty imposed on him is
and cannot be likened to the judicial function of a court of justice, or
considered as unjust and cruel. Under the circumstances obtaining in
even a quasi-judicial agency or official. The function of receiving
this case, the penalty of dismissal is not commensurate to the fact that
evidence and ascertaining therefrom the facts of a controversy is not a
he is a graduating cadet with honors and what he allegedly committed
judicial function, properly speaking. To be considered such, the faculty
does not amount to an academic deficiency or an intentional and
of receiving evidence and making factual conclusions in a controversy
flagrant violation of the PMA non-academic rules and regulations.
must be accompanied by the authority of applying the law to those
Citing Non, petitioners argue that the penalty imposed must be
factual conclusions to the end that the controversy may be decided or
proportionate to the offense. Further, lsabelo, Jr. is squarely applicable
determined authoritatively, finally and definitively, subject to such
to the facts of the case. Cadet 1 CL Cudia was deprived of his right to
appeals or modes of review as may be provided by law. This function,
education, the only means by which he may have a secure life and
to repeat, the Commission does not have.
future.

xxxx
Considering Our finding that Cadet 1 CL Cudia in truth and in fact lied
and his acceptance that violation of the Honor Code warrants the
ultimate penalty of dismissal from the PMA, there is actually no more [i]t cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as
dispute to resolve. Indeed, the sanction is clearly set forth and Cadet 1 courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial bodies do. To investigate is not
CL Cudia, by contract, risked this when he entered the Academy.218 We to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical
adopt the ruling in Andrews219 wherein it was held that, while the sense, these terms have well understood and quite distinct meanings.
penalty is severe, it is nevertheless reasonable and not arbitrary, and,
therefore, not in violation of due process. It quoted the disposition of "Investigate, "commonly understood, means to examine, explore,
the district court, thus: inquire or delve or probe into, research on, study. The dictionary
definition of "investigate" is "to observe or study closely: inquire into
The fact that a cadet will be separated from the Academy upon a systematically: "to search or inquire into: x x x to subject to an official
finding that he has violated the Honor Code is known to all cadets probe x x x: to conduct an official inquiry;" The purpose of
even prior to the beginning of their careers there. The finding of a investigation, of course, is to discover, to find out, to learn, obtain
Code violation by hypothesis includes a finding of scienter on the part information. Nowhere included or intimated is the notion of settling,
of the offender. While separation is admittedly a drastic and tragic deciding or resolving a controversy involved in the facts inquired into
consequence of a cadet's transgression, it is not an unconstitutionally by application of the law to the facts established by the inquiry.
arbitrary one, but rather a reasonable albeit severe method of
preventing men who have suffered ethical lapses from becoming The legal meaning of "investigate" is essentially the same: "(t)o follow
career officers. That a policy of admonitions or lesser penalties for up step by step by patient inquiry or observation. To trace or track; to
single violations might be more compassionate --or even more search into; to examine and inquire into with care and accuracy; to
effective in achieving the intended result --is quite immaterial to the find out by careful inquisition; examination; the taking of evidence; a
question of whether the harsher penalty violates due process.220 legal inquiry;" "to inquire; to make an investigation," "investigation"
being in turn described as "(a)n administrative function, the exercise of
Nature of the CHR Findings which ordinarily does not require a hearing. 2 Am J2d Adm L Sec. 257;

32
xx x an inquiry, judicial or otherwise, for the discovery and collection of Presiding Judge in the following Regional Trial Courts (RTCs): Branch
facts concerning a certain matter or matters." 31, Tagum City; Branch 13, Davao City; and Branch 6, Prosperidad,
Agusan Del Sur.
"Adjudicate," commonly or popularly understood, means to adjudge,
In a letter2 dated December 18, 2013, JBC's Office of Recruitment,
arbitrate, judge, decide, determine, resolve, rule on, settle. The
Selection and Nomination, informed the petitioner that he was not
dictionary defines the term as "to settle finally (the rights and duties of
included in the list of candidates for the said stations. On the same
the parties to a court case) on the merits of issues raised: xx to pass
date, the petitioner sent a letter, through electronic mail, seeking
judgment on: settle judicially: x x x act as judge." And "adjudge"
reconsideration of his non-inclusion in the list of considered applicants
means "to decide or rule upon as a judge or with judicial or quasi-
and protesting the inclusion of applicants who did not pass the
judicial powers: xx to award or grant judicially in a case of controversy
prejudicature examination.
x x x."
The petitioner was informed by the JBC Executive Officer, through a
In the legal sense, "adjudicate" means: "To settle in the exercise of letter3 dated February 3, 2014, that his protest and reconsideration
judicial authority.1âwphi1 To determine finally. Synonymous with was duly noted by the JBC en banc. However, its decision not to
adjudge in its strictest sense;" and "adjudge" means: "To pass on include his name in the list of applicants was upheld due to the JBC's
judicially, to decide, settle or decree, or to sentence or condemn. xx long-standing policy of opening the chance for promotion to second-
Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and the entry of a judgment. level courts to, among others, incumbent judges who have served in
"226 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
All told, petitioners are not entitled to moral and exemplary damages list. This caused the petitioner to take recourse to this Court.
in accordance with Articles 19, 2217, 2219 and 2229 of the Civil Code.
The dismissal of Cadet 1 CL Cudia from the PMA did not effectively In his petition, he argued that: (1) the Constitution already prescribed
deprive him of a future. Cliche though it may sound, being a PMA the qualifications of an RTC judge, and the JBC could add no more; (2)
graduate is not the "be-all and end-all" of his existence. A cadet the JBC's five-year requirement violates the equal protection and due
separated from the PMA may still continue to pursue military or civilian process clauses of the Constitution; and (3) the JBC's five-year
career elsewhere without suffering the stigma attached to his or her requirement violates the constitutional provision on Social Justice and
dismissal. For one, as suggested by respondents, DND-AFP Circular Human Rights for Equal Opportunity of Employment. The petitioner
No. 13, dated July 15, 1991, on the enlistment and reenlistment in the also asserted that the requirement of the Prejudicature Program
APP Regular Force, provides under Section 14 (b) thereof that priority mandated by Section 104 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 85575 should not
shall be given to, among others, the ex-PMA or PAFFFS cadets.227 If be merely directory and should be fully implemented. He further
the positions open does not appeal to his interest for being way below alleged that he has all the qualifications for the position prescribed by
the rank he could have achieved as a PMA graduate, Cadet 1 CL Cudia the Constitution and by Congress, since he has already complied with
could still practice other equally noble profession or calling that is best the requirement of 10 years of practice of law.
suited to his credentials, competence, and potential. Definitely, nobody
can deprive him of that choice. In compliance with the Court's Resolution6 dated April 22, 2014, the
JBC7 and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)8separately submitted
their Comments. Summing up the arguments of the JBC and the OSG,
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The dismissal of Cadet First they essentially stated that the petition is procedurally infirm and that
Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia from the Philippine Military Academy is the assailed policy does not violate the equal protection and due
hereby AFFIRMED. No costs. process clauses. They posited that: (1) the writ of certiorari and
prohibition cannot issue to prevent the JBC from performing its
SO ORDERED. principal function under the Constitution to recommend appointees to
the Judiciary because the JBC is not a tribunal exercising judicial or
quasi-judicial function; (2) the remedy of mandamus and declaratory
G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015 relief will not lie because the petitioner has no clear legal right that
needs to be protected; (3) the equal protection clause is not violated
FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MCTC, because the classification of lower court judges who have served at
COMPOSTELA-NEW BATAAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY least five years and those who have served less than five years is valid
PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. JUDICIAL AND BAR as it is performance and experience based; and (4) there is no
COUNCIL, Respondent. violation of due process as the policy is merely internal in
nature.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
DECISION
The Issue

REYES, J.: The crux of this petition is whether or not the policy of JBC requiring
five years of service as judges of first-level courts before they can
Presiding Judge Ferdinand R. Villanueva (petitioner) directly came to qualify as applicant to second-level courts is constitutional.
this Court via a Petition for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Certiorari, and
Declaratory Relief1 under Rules 65 and 63 of the Rules of Court, Ruling of the Court
respectively, with prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining Procedural Issues:
order and/or writ of preliminary injunction, to assail the policy of the
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), requiring five years of service as judges Before resolving the substantive issues, the Court considers it
of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicant to second-level necessary to first determine whether or not the action for certiorari,
courts, on the ground that it is unconstitutional, and was issued with prohibition and mandamus, and declaratory relief commenced by the
grave abuse of discretion.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary petitioner was proper.

The Facts One. The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are tenable. "The

present Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for determining
The petitioner was appointed on September 18, 2012 as the Presiding and correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Compostela-New Bataan, of jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions for certiorari and
Poblacion, Compostela Valley Province, Region XI, which is a first-level prohibition, and both are governed by Rule 65." 9 As discussed in the
court. On September 27, 2013, he applied for the vacant position of case of Maria Carolina P. Araullo, etc., et al. v. Benigno Simeon C.

33
Aquino III, etc., et al.,10 this Court explained judicial vacancies. Possession of the constitutional and statutory
that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary qualifications for appointment to the judiciary may not be used to
With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and legally demand that one's name be included in the list of candidates
prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ for a judicial vacancy. One's inclusion in the list of the candidates
of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of depends on the discretion of the JBC, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
jurisdiction committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or The fact that an individual possesses the constitutional and statutory
officer exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also qualifications for appointment to the Judiciary does not create an
to set right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion entitlement or expectation that his or her name be included in the list
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or of candidates for a judicial vacancy. By submitting an application or
instrumentality of the Government, even if the latter does not exercise accepting a recommendation, one submits to the authority of the JBC
judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions. This application is to subject the former to the search, screening, and selection process,
expressly authorized by the text of the second paragraph of Section 1, and to use its discretion in deciding whether or not one should be
supra. included in the list. Indeed, assuming that if one has the legal right to
be included in the list of candidates simply because he or she
Thus, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies possesses the constitutional and statutory qualifications, then the
to raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify application process would then be reduced to a mere mechanical
the acts of legislative and executive officials.11 (Citation omitted) function of the JBC; and the search, screening, and selection process
would not only be unnecessary, but also improper. However, this is
In this case, it is clear that the JBC does not fall within the scope of a
clearly not the constitutional intent. One's inclusion in the list of
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
candidates is subject to the discretion of the JBC over the
In the process of selecting and screening applicants, the JBC neither
selection of nominees for a particular judicial post. Such
acted in any judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor assumed unto itself
candidate's inclusion is not, therefore, a legally demandable right, but
any performance of judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. However,
simply a privilege the conferment of which is subject to the JBC's
since the formulation of guidelines and criteria, including the policy
sound discretion.
that the petitioner now assails, is necessary and incidental to the
exercise of the JBC's constitutional mandate, a determination must be
Moreover, petitioner is essentially seeking a promotional appointment,
made on whether the JBC has acted with grave abuse of discretion
that is, a promotion from a first-level court to a second level
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and enforcing the
court. There is no law, however, that grants him the right to a
said policy.
promotion to second-level courts.15 (Emphasis in the original)
Besides, the Court can appropriately take cognizance of this case by Clearly, to be included as an applicant to second-level judge is not
virtue of the Court's power of supervision over the JBC. Jurisprudence properly compellable by mandamus inasmuch as it involves the
provides that the power of supervision is the power of oversight, or exercise of sound discretion by the JBC.
the authority to see that subordinate officers perform their duties. It
ensures that the laws and the rules governing the conduct of a Three. The petition for declaratory relief is improper. "An action for
government entity are observed and complied with. Supervising declaratory relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed,
officials see to it that rules are followed, but they themselves do not a will, a contract or other written instrument, and whose rights are
lay down such rules, nor do they have the discretion to modify or affected by a statute, an executive order, a regulation or an ordinance.
replace them. If the rules are not observed, they may order the work The relief sought under this remedy includes the interpretation and
done or redone, but only to conform to such rules. They may not determination of the validity of the written instrument and the judicial
prescribe their own manner of execution of the act. They have no declaration of the parties' rights or duties thereunder."16 "[T]he
discretion on this matter except to see to it that the rules are purpose of the action is to secure an authoritative statement of the
followed.12 rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed,
contract, etc., for their guidance in its enforcement or compliance and
Following this definition, the supervisory authority of the Court over not to settle issues arising from its alleged breach."17
the JBC is to see to it that the JBC complies with its own rules and
procedures. Thus, when the policies of the JBC are being attacked, In this case, the petition for declaratory relief did not involve an
then the Court, through its supervisory authority over the JBC, has the unsound policy. Rather, the petition specifically sought a judicial
duty to inquire about the matter and ensure that the JBC complies declaration that the petitioner has the right to be included in the list of
with its own rules. applicants although he failed to meet JBC's five-year requirement
policy. Again, the Court reiterates that no person possesses a legal
Two. The remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by the petitioner right under the Constitution to be included in the list of nominees for
in assailing JBC's policy. The petitioner insisted that mandamus is vacant judicial positions. The opportunity of appointment to judicial
proper because his right was violated when he was not included in the office is a mere privilege, and not a judicially enforceable right that
list of candidates for the RTC courts he applied for. He said that his may be properly claimed by any person. The inclusion in the list of
non-inclusion in the list of candidates for these stations has caused candidates, which is one of the incidents of such appointment, is not a
him direct injury. right either. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim any right that could have
been affected by the assailed policy.
It is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that the applicant
should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be Furthermore, the instant petition must necessarily fail because this
the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act Court does not have original jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory
required.13 The petitioner bears the burden to show that there is such relief even if only questions of law are involved. 18 The special civil
a clear legal right to the performance of the act, and a corresponding action of declaratory relief falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
compelling duty on the part of the respondent to perform the act. The appropriate RTC pursuant to Section 1919 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129,
remedy of mandamus, as an extraordinary writ, lies only to compel an as amended by R.A.No. 7691.20
officer to perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.14 Clearly,
the use of discretion and the performance of a ministerial act are Therefore, by virtue of the Court's supervisory duty over the JBC and
mutually exclusive. in the exercise of its expanded judicial power, the Court assumes
jurisdiction over the present petition. But in any event, even if the
The writ of mandamus does not issue to control or review the exercise Court will set aside procedural infirmities, the instant petition should
of discretion or to compel a course of conduct, which, it quickly seems still be dismissed.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
to us, was what the petitioner would have the JBC do in his favor. The
function of the JBC to select and recommend nominees for vacant Substantive Issues
judicial positions is discretionary, not ministerial. Moreso, the petitioner
cannot claim any legal right to be included in the list of nominees for

34
 Consideration of experience by JBC as one factor in choosing
As an offspring of the 1987 Constitution, the JBC is mandated to recommended appointees does not constitute a violation of the equal
recommend appointees to the judiciary and only those nominated by protection clause. The JBC does not discriminate when it employs
the JBC in a list officially transmitted to the President may be number of years of service to screen and differentiate applicants from
appointed by the latter as justice or judge in the judiciary. Thus, the the competition. The number of years of service provides a relevant
JBC is burdened with a great responsibility that is imbued with public basis to determine proven competence which may be measured by
interest as it determines the men and women who will sit on the experience, among other factors. The difference in treatment between
judicial bench. While the 1987 Constitution has provided the lower court judges who have served at least five years and those who
qualifications of members of the judiciary, this does not preclude the have served less than five years, on the other hand, was rationalized
JBC from having its own set of rules and procedures and providing by JBC as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
policies to effectively ensure its mandate. Formulating policies which streamline the selection process falls
squarely under the purview of the JBC. No other constitutional body is
The functions of searching, screening, and selecting are necessary and bestowed with the mandate and competency to set criteria for
incidental to the JBC's principal function of choosing and applicants that refer to the more general categories of probity,
recommending nominees for vacancies in the judiciary for appointment integrity and independence.
by the President. However, the Constitution did not lay down in precise
terms the process that the JBC shall follow in determining applicants' The assailed criterion or consideration for promotion to a second-level
qualifications. In carrying out its main function, the JBC has the court, which is five years experience as judge of a first-level court, is a
authority to set the standards/criteria in choosing its nominees for direct adherence to the qualities prescribed by the Constitution. Placing
every vacancy in the judiciary, subject only to the minimum a premium on many years of judicial experience, the JBC is merely
qualifications required by the Constitution and law for every position. applying one of the stringent constitutional standards requiring that a
The search for these long held qualities necessarily requires a degree member of the judiciary be of "proven competence." In determining
of flexibility in order to determine who is most fit among the competence, the JBC considers, among other
applicants. Thus, the JBC has sufficient but not unbridled license to act qualifications, experience and performance.
in performing its duties.
Based on the JBC's collective judgment, those who have been judges
JBC's ultimate goal is to recommend nominees and not simply to fill up of first-level courts for five (5) years are better qualified for promotion
judicial vacancies in order to promote an effective and efficient to second-level courts. It deems length of experience as a judge as
administration of justice. Given this pragmatic situation, the JBC had to indicative of conversance with the law and court procedure. Five years
establish a set of uniform criteria in order to ascertain whether an is considered as a sufficient span of time for one to acquire
applicant meets the minimum constitutional qualifications and professional skills for the next level court, declog the dockets, put in
possesses the qualities expected of him and his office. Thus, the place improved procedures and an efficient case management system,
adoption of the five-year requirement policy applied by JBC to the adjust to the work environment, and gain extensive experience in the
petitioner's case is necessary and incidental to the function conferred judicial process.
by the Constitution to the JBC.
A five-year stint in the Judiciary can also provide evidence of
Equal Protection the integrity, probity, and independence of judges seeking
promotion. To merit JBC's nomination for their promotion, they must
There is no question that JBC employs standards to have a rational have had a "record of, and reputation for, honesty, integrity,
basis to screen applicants who cannot be all accommodated and incorruptibility, irreproachable conduct, and fidelity to sound moral and
appointed to a vacancy in the judiciary, to determine who is best ethical standards." Likewise, their decisions must be reflective of the
qualified among the applicants, and not to discriminate against any soundness of their judgment, courage, rectitude, cold neutrality and
particular individual or class. strength of character.

The equal protection clause of the Constitution does not require the Hence, for the purpose of determining whether judges are worthy of
universal application of the laws to all persons or things without promotion to the next level court, it would be premature or difficult to
distinction; what it requires is simply equality among equals as assess their merit if they have had less than one year of service on the
determined according to a valid classification. Hence, the Court has bench.26 (Citations omitted and emphasis in the original)
affirmed that if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets
At any rate, five years of service as a lower court judge is not the only
a suspect class, the classification stands as long as it bears a rational
factor that determines the selection of candidates for RTC judge to be
relationship to some legitimate government
appointed by the President. Persons with this qualification are neither
end.21ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
automatically selected nor do they automatically become nominees.
The applicants are chosen based on an array of factors and are
"The equal protection clause, therefore, does not preclude
evaluated based on their individual merits. Thus, it cannot be said that
classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment
the questioned policy was arbitrary, capricious, or made without any
under the law as long as the classification is reasonable and not
basis.
arbitrary."22 "The mere fact that the legislative classification may result
in actual inequality is not violative of the right to equal protection, for
Clearly, the classification created by the challenged policy satisfies the
every classification of persons or things for regulation by law produces
rational basis test. The foregoing shows that substantial distinctions do
inequality in some degree, but the law is not thereby rendered
exist between lower court judges with five year experience and those
invalid."23
with less than five years of experience, like the petitioner, and the
classification enshrined in the assailed policy is reasonable and relevant
That is the situation here. In issuing the assailed policy, the JBC
to its legitimate purpose. The Court, thus, rules that the questioned
merely exercised its discretion in accordance with the constitutional
policy does not infringe on the equal protection clause as it is based on
requirement and its rules that a member of the Judiciary must be of
reasonable classification intended to gauge the proven competence of
proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.24"To ensure
the applicants. Therefore, the said policy is valid and constitutional.
the fulfillment of these standards in every member of the Judiciary, the
JBC has been tasked to screen aspiring judges and justices, among
Due Process
others, making certain that the nominees submitted to the President
are all qualified and suitably best for appointment. In this way, the
The petitioner averred that the assailed policy violates procedural due
appointing process itself is shielded from the possibility of extending
process for lack of publication and non-submission to the University of
judicial appointment to the undeserving and mediocre and, more
the Philippines Law Center Office of the National Administrative
importantly, to the ineligible or disqualified."25
Register (ONAR). The petitioner said that the assailed policy will affect
all applying judges, thus, the said policy should have been published.

35
Contrary to the petitioner's contention, the assailed JBC policy need Nonetheless, the JBC's failure to publish the assailed policy has not
not be filed in the ONAR because the publication requirement in the prejudiced the petitioner's private interest. At the risk of being
ONAR is confined to issuances of administrative agencies under the repetitive, the petitioner has no legal right to be included in the list of
Executive branch of the government.27 Since the JBC is a body under nominees for judicial vacancies since the possession of the
the supervision of the Supreme Court,28 it is not covered by the constitutional and statutory qualifications for appointment to the
publication requirements of the Administrative Code. 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
Nevertheless, the assailed JBC policy requiring five years of service as in the shortlist is strictly within the discretion of the JBC. 30
judges of first-level courts before they can qualify as applicants to
second-level courts should have been published. As a general rule, As to the issue that the JBC failed or refused to implement the
publication is indispensable in order that all statutes, including completion of the prejudicature program as a requirement for
administrative rules that are intended to enforce or implement existing appointment or promotion in the judiciary under R.A. No. 8557, this
laws, attain binding force and effect. There are, however, several ground of the petition, being unsubstantiated, was unfounded. Clearly,
exceptions to the requirement of publication, such as interpretative it cannot be said that JBC unlawfully neglects the performance of a
regulations and those merely internal in nature, which regulate only duty enjoined by law.
the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public. Neither
is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by Finally, the petitioner argued but failed to establish that the assailed
administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be policy violates the constitutional provision under social justice and
followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.29 human rights for equal opportunity of employment. The OSG
explained:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Here, the assailed JBC policy does not fall within the administrative [T]he questioned policy does not violate equality of employment
rules and regulations exempted from the publication requirement. The opportunities. The constitutional provision does not call for
assailed policy involves a qualification standard by which the JBC shall appointment to the Judiciary of all who might, for any number of
determine proven competence of an applicant. It is not an internal reasons, wish to apply. As with all professions, it is regulated by the
regulation, because if it were, it would regulate and affect only the State. The office of a judge is no ordinary office. It is imbued with
members of the JBC and their staff. Notably, the selection process public interest and is central in the administration of justice x x x.
involves a call to lawyers who meet the qualifications in the Applicants who meet the constitutional and legal qualifications must
Constitution and are willing to serve in the Judiciary to apply to these vie and withstand the competition and rigorous screening and selection
vacant positions. Thus, it is but a natural consequence thereof that process. They must submit themselves to the selection criteria,
potential applicants be informed of the requirements to the judicial processes and discretion of respondent JBC, which has the
positions, so that they would be able to prepare for and comply with constitutional mandate of screening and selecting candidates whose
them. names will be in the list to be submitted to the President. So long as a
fair opportunity is available for all applicants who are evaluated on the
The Court also noted the fact that in JBC-009, otherwise known as the basis of their individual merits and abilities, the questioned policy
Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council, the JBC had put its criteria in cannot be struck down as unconstitutional.31 (Citations omitted)
writing and listed the guidelines in determining competence,
From the foregoing, it is apparent that the petitioner has not
independence, integrity and probity. Section 1, Paragraph 1 of Rule 9
established a clear legal right to justify the issuance of a preliminary
expressly provides that applicants for the Court of Appeals and
injunction. The petitioner has merely filed an application with the JBC
the Sandiganbayan, should, as a general rule, have at least five years
for the position of RTC judge, and he has no clear legal right to be
of experience as an RTC judge, thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
nominated for that office nor to be selected and included in the list to
RULE 9 - SPECIAL GUIDELINES FOR NOMINATION TO A VACANCY IN
be submitted to the President which is subject to the discretion of the
THE COURT OF APPEALS AND SANDIGANBAYAN
JBC. The JBC has the power to determine who shall be recommended
to the judicial post. To be included in the list of applicants is a privilege
Section 1. Additional criteria for nomination to the Court of Appeals
as one can only be chosen under existing criteria imposed by the JBC
and the Sandiganbayan. - In addition to the foregoing guidelines the
itself. As such, prospective applicants, including the petitioner, cannot
Council should consider the following in evaluating the merits of
claim any demandable right to take part in it if they fail to meet these
applicants for a vacancy in the Court of Appeals and Sandiganbayan:
criteria. Hence, in the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of an
injunctive writ is not justified.
1. As a general rule, he must have at least five years of experience
as a judge of Regional Trial Court, except when he has in his favor
As the constitutional body granted with the power of searching for,
outstanding credentials, as evidenced by, inter alia, impressive
screening, and selecting applicants relative to recommending
scholastic or educational record and performance in the Bar
appointees to the Judiciary, the JBC has the authority to determine
examinations, excellent reputation for honesty, integrity, probity and
how best to perform such constitutional mandate. Pursuant to this
independence of mind; at least very satisfactory performance rating
authority, the JBC issues various policies setting forth the guidelines to
for three (3) years preceding the filing of his application for
be observed in the evaluation of applicants, and formulates rules and
nomination; and excellent potentials for appellate judgeship.
guidelines in order to ensure that the rules are updated to respond to
existing circumstances. Its discretion is freed from legislative,
x x x x (Emphasis ours)
executive or judicial intervention to ensure that the JBC is shielded
The express declaration of these guidelines in JBC-009, which have from any outside pressure and improper influence. Limiting qualified
been duly published on the website of the JBC and in a newspaper of applicants in this case to those judges with five years of experience
general circulation suggests that the JBC is aware that these are not was an exercise of discretion by the JBC. The potential applicants,
mere internal rules, but are rules implementing the Constitution that however, should have been informed of the requirements to the
should be published. Thus, if the JBC were so-minded to add special judicial positions, so that they could properly prepare for and comply
guidelines for determining competence of applicants for RTC judges, with them. Hence, unless there are good and compelling reasons to do
then it could and should have amended its rules and published the so, the Court will refrain from interfering with the exercise of JBC's
same. This, the JBC did not do as JBC-009 and its amendatory rule do powers, and will respect the initiative and independence inherent in
not have special guidelines for applicants to the RTC. the latter.cralawred

Moreover, jurisprudence has held that rules implementing a statute WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DISMISSED. The
should be published. Thus, by analogy, publication is also required for Court, however, DIRECTS that the Judicial and Bar Council comply
the five-year requirement because it seeks to implement a with the publication requirement of (1) the assailed policy requiring
constitutional provision requiring proven competence from members of five years of experience as judges of first-level courts before they can
the judiciary. qualify as applicant to the Regional Trial Court, and (2) other special

36
guidelines that the Judicial and Bar Council is or will be implementing.

SO ORDERED.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

37