UP vs Ayson

UP vs. Ayson G.R. No. 88386 August 17, 1989 FACTS: The UP Board of Regents issued an order abolishing the University of the Philippines College Baguio High School (UPCBHS) on the ground that such school is not serving as a laboratory or demonstration school, among others, invoking in their favor academic freedom. The UPCBHS filed a petition for injunction with preliminary preventive mandatory injunction with a prayer for the issuance a TRO in the CFI, invoking the right to quality education and free public secondary education. The CFI granted this and issued an order restraining the Board from implementing their decision to phase out the UPCBHS. Thus, this petition for certiorari. (In the meantime while the case is pending, the SC issued a TRO enjoining the implementation of the assailed order of the CFI.)



ISSUE: Whether a petition for certiorari/prohibition to restrain the Board from implementing the decision of phasing out UPCBHS is proper? HELD: No.  It is beyond cavil that the UP, as an institution of higher learning, enjoys academic freedom—the institutional kind. It decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint.  Acts of an administrative agency within their areas of competence must be casually overturned by the courts.  Mandamus is not proper to compel a school to enroll a student for academic deficiencies because this involves the exercise by the school of discretion under academic freedom.  In Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, the Court had occasion to note the scope of academic freedom recognized by the



Constitution as follows: reference is to the 'institutions of higher learning' as the recipients of this boon. It would follow then that the school or college itself is possessed of such a right. It decides for itself its aims and objectives and how best to attain them. It is free from outside coercion or interference save possibly when the overriding public welfare calls for some restraint. It has a wide sphere of autonomy certainly extending to the choice of students… It is the business of a university to provide that atmosphere which is most conducive to speculation, experiment and creation. It is an atmosphere in which there prevail the four essential freedom of a university—to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study Rep. Act No. 6655, otherwise known as the "Free Public Secondary Education Act of 1988," includes in its coverage state colleges and universities (SCUs) offering secondary courses. Respondents cointend that since a secondary course is being offered in UPCB, petitioners cannot unilaterally withdraw therefrom, otherwise, the said Act would be nothing but a mere nullity for all other SCUs. Besides, respondents contend, petitioners already recognized the applicability of Rep. Act No. 6655 when they implemented the same at the UPCBHS for School Year 1988-89 and petitioners' assertion that UPCBHS was established only if it would be "self-supporting and should not entail any subsidy from the budget of UP" is but a lame excuse. UPCBHS was established subject to a number of conditionalities, e.g., it must be self-supporting, it can serve as a feeder for the UP at Baguio, it can serve as a laboratory and demonstration school for prospective teachers, failing in which the University can order its abolition on academic grounds, specially where the purposes for which it was established was not satisfied. It is apparent that secondary education is not the mandated function of the University of the Philippines; consequently, the latter can validly phase

out and/or abolish the UPCBHS especially so when the requirements for its continuance have not been met, Rep. Act No. 6655 to the contrary notwithstanding.