SC upholds power of schools to discipline erring students

MANILA, Philippines - Administrations of schools have the power to expel erring students to maintain order and discipline in their campus, the Supreme Court has ruled.

In a 10-page decision, the second division of the High Court said the authority of schools and their administrators to impose sanctions, including expulsion, as disciplinary action against erring students is consistent to their constitutional mandate to “teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline.”

“Schools and school administrators have the authority to maintain school discipline and the right to impose appropriate and reasonable disciplinary measures,” the SC stressed in the ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

The High Court also said that, “students have the duty and the responsibility to promote and maintain the peace and tranquility of the school by observing the rules of discipline.”

The SC issued this ruling through the case involving some students of the High School Department of the Iloilo City-based University of San Agustin who were expelled in 2002 after they were caught engaging in hazing outside the school premises.

It affirmed the June 16, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeals that granted the University’s petition and ordered the trial court to dismiss the cases pending with the regional trial court for lack of jurisdiction due to the failure of the students and their parents to exhaust administrative remedies or for being premature.

The CA said the students and their parents should have waited for the action of the Department of Education or of the university president before resorting to judicial action.

The SC ruled that the principal had the authority to order the immediate transfer of the students in view of the Nov. 28, 2002 agreement.

 The High Court noted that the parents themselves “affixed their signatures to the minutes of the November 2002 meeting and signified their conformity to transfer their children to another school.”

Two of the parents, the Court said, even wrote a letter to inform the university that they would transfer their children to another school and requested for the pertinent papers needed for the transfer.

The Court said that for these reasons, the University did not anymore convene the COSD and agreed that it would no longer conduct disciplinary proceedings against the students.

Despite this, the Court said the students and their parents reneged on the agreement without any justifiable reason.

The Court ruled it cannot issue the writ of injunction sought by the parents and the students because petitioners in injunction cases must come to court with clean hands.

“Here, petitioners, having reneged on their agreement without any justifiable reason, come to court with unclean hands. This Court may deny a litigant relief if his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest as to the controversy in issue,” the Court said.