G.R. No. 211362 February 24, 2015
FIRST CLASS CADET ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA of the Philippine Military Academy, represented by his father RENATO P. CUDIA, who also acts on his own behalf, and BERTENI CATALUNA CAUSING, Petitioners, vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY (PMA), THE HONOR COMMITTEE (HC) OF 2014 OF THE PMA and HC MEMBERS, and the CADET REVIEW AND APPEALS BOARD (CRAB), Respondents. , FILIPINA P. CUDIA, in behalf of CADET FIRST CLASS ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA, and on her own behalf, Petitioner-Intervenor.
FACTS:
Six days prior to the March 16, 2014 graduation ceremonies of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), petitioners Renato P. Cudia, acting for himself and in behalf of his son, Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia (Cadet JCL Cudia), and Berteni Catalufta causing filed this petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with application for extremely urgent temporary restraining order (TRO).
In this case, Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of the Philippine Military Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa Class of 2014. The the combined classes of the Navy and Air Force 1 CL cadets had a lesson examination (LE) on Operations Research. Five days after, Professor Juanita Berong of the 5th period class issued a Delinquency Report against Cudia because he was "late for two (2) minutes in his Eng class. He asserts that there are also other students who were reported late for five minutes. Cudia averred that he was late because his OR class was dismissed a bit late. The tactical officer (TO) tasked to look upon the matter concluded that Cudia lied when he said that their OR class was dismissed late because the OR teacher said she never dismissed her class late. Thus, Cudia was meted with demerits and touring hours because of said infraction. Cudia did not agree with the penalty hence he asked the TO about it. Not content with the explanation of the TO, Cudia said he will be appealing the penalty he incurred to the senior tactical officer (STO). The TO then asked Cudia to write his appeal. The Honor Code is PMA’s basis for the minimum standard of behavior required of their cadets. Any violation thereof may be a ground to separate a cadet from PMA. Cudia submitted an explanation to the HC.
After hearings and witnesses were presented, the HC reconvened and the members cast their vote. The initial vote was 8-1: 8 found Cudia guilty and 1 acquitted Cudia. After the chambering, the dissenter was convinced that his initial “not guilty vote” was improper, hence he changed the same and the final vote became 9-0. Thus, Cudia was immediately placed inside PMA’s holding center.Cudia appealed to the HC chairman but his appeal was denied. Eventually, the Superintendent of the PMA ordered the dismissal of Cudia from the PMA.
Cudia and several members of his family then sent letters to various military officers requesting for a re-investigation. It was their claim that there were irregularities in the investigation done by the HC. As a result of such pleas, the case of Cudia was referred to the Cadet Review and Appeals Board of PMA (CRAB). Meanwhile, Cudia’s family brought the case to the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) where it was alleged that PMA’s “sham” investigation violated Cudia’s rights to due process, education, and privacy of communication. Eventually, the CRAB ruled against Cudia. This ruling was affirmed by the AFP Chief of Staff.
But on the other hand, the CHR found in favor of Cudia. PMA averred that CHR’s findings are at best recommendatory. Cudia filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Supreme Court. PMA opposed the said petition as it argued that the same is not proper as a matter of policy and that the court should avoid interfering with military matters.
Respondents argue that the mandamus aspect of the petition praying that 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 already took place. Also, a petition for mandamus is improper since it does not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty. Invoking Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, respondents assert that a mandamus petition could not be availed of to compel an academic institution to allow a student to continue studying therein because it is merely a privilege and not a right.
On the other hand, petitioners contend that while the plea to allow Cadet 1 CL Cudia to participate in the commencement exercises could no longer be had, the Court may still grant the other reliefs prayed for. They add that Garcia enunciated that a respondent can be 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 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 has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess thereof.
ISSUE: HE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITIONS ARE ACTUALLY FACTUAL WHICH ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION AND MANDAMUS.
RULING:
The court ruled that the petition for mandamus is improper.
Under Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for mandamus may be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, 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. It may also be filed when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled. For mandamus to lie, the act sought to be enjoined must be a 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 obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of [the tribunal or corporation's] own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done." The tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person must have no choice but to perform the act 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. The restoration of Cadet 1 CL Cudia's rights and entitlements as a full-fledged graduating cadet, the same cannot be granted in a petition for mandamus on the basis of academic freedom.
These matters are within the ambit of or encompassed by the right of academic freedom; therefore, beyond the province of the Court to decide. The powers to confer degrees at the PMA, grant awards, and commission officers in the military service are discretionary acts on the part of the President as the AFP Commander-in-Chief. Certainly, mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases.
It cannot be availed against an official or government agency whose duty requires the exercise of discretion or judgment.For a writ to issue, petitioners should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and there should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents to perform the act sought to be mandated. The same reasons can be said as regards the other reliefs being sought by petitioners, which pertain to the HC and the CRAB proceedings.
In the absence of a clear and unmistakable provision of a law, a mandamus petition does not lie to require anyone to a specific course of conduct or to control or review the exercise of discretion; it will not issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do or give to the applicant anything to which he is not entitled by law. The foregoing notwithstanding, the resolution of the case must proceed since, as argued by petitioners, the Court is empowered to settle via petition for certiorari whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondents in dismissing Cadet 1 CL Cudia from the PMA.
The petition for certiorari is allowed because the issue herein is whether or not PMA and its responsible officers acted with grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed Cudia. Under the Constitution, that is the duty of the courts to decide actual controversies and to determine whether or not a government branch or instrumentality acted with grave abuse of discretion. Thus, PMA cannot argue that judicial intervention into military affairs is not proper as a matter of policy. Suffice it to say that judicial non-interference in military affairs is not an absolute rule. It is true that a PMA cadet, by enrolling at PMA, must be prepared to subordinate his private interests for the proper functioning of the educational institution he attends to, one that is with a greater degree than a student at a civilian public school. However, a cadet facing dismissal from PMA, whose private interests are at stake (life, liberty, property) which includes his honor, good name, and integrity, is entitled to due process. No one can be deprived of such without due process of law and the PMA, even as a military academy, is not exempt from such strictures. Thus, when Cudia questioned in court the manner upon which he was dismissed from the PMA, such controversy may be inquired upon by the courts.
No comments:
Post a Comment