February 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 200208 : February 22, 2012]
AARON NATHAN Q. IFURUNG, ASSISTED BY REY NATHANIEL C. IFURUNG v. MRS. AMY C. GALANG AND/OR MRS. FELIZ FILOMENA O. CASTILLO AND LA SALLE GREENHILLS
G.R. No. 200208 (Aaron Nathan Q. Ifurung, assisted by Rey Nathaniel C. Ifurung v. Mrs. Amy C. Galang and/or Mrs. Feliz Filomena O. Castillo and La Salle Greenhills)
RESOLUTION
This Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the December 5, 2011 Resolution[1] and January 20, 2012 Order[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City in SCA Case No. 3565-PSG upholding respondents' implementation of the rule on academic probation.
The Factual Antecedents
Respondent school La Salle Greenhills (LSGH) is a school engaged in providing elementary and high school education. It maintains an Academic Probation Policy which, as stated in its Student Handbook, provides that �[a] student on Academic Probation will not be re-admitted the next school year if he has a failing mark in any of his final grades."
Petitioner Aaron Nathan Q. Ifurung enrolled as a First Year student for the school year 2010-2011 with LSGH. While his Registration Form dated May 12, 2010 did not reflect this information, petitioner was actually placed under academic probation, having failed two (2) subjects in Grade 7 and taken summer classes prior to his enrollment. Petitioner also denied knowledge of such academic probation. Subsequently, LSGH informed petitioner that he will no longer be readmitted, or allowed to enroll the following year because he failed in Science. Respondent Mrs. Amy C. Galang, the school principal did not act upon petitioner's letter of reconsideration. Hence, the latter filed a petition for prohibition with very urgent prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction and preliminary mandatory injunction against LSGH and individual respondents, Mrs. Amy C. Galang and Mrs. Feliz Filomena O. Castillo, the assistant principal.
The RTC Ruling
The RTC denied the petition upon a finding that respondents did not commit grave abuse of discretion in enforcing LSGH's policy on Academic Probation. It justified the school's action as a valid exercise of its constitutional right to academic freedom which includes the prerogative to determine whom it may admit to study in its institution. It upheld the distinction between graduates of LSGH and those of other schools in the admission process, and held that LSGH cannot be compelled to consider petitioner's grade in his summer remedial class as his final grade for his regular class without impairing LSGH's academic freedom.
In the instant petition for review, petitioner raises the sole issue of whether or not respondents should be prohibited from implementing the rule on Academic Probation against students who did not give their consent to, were not aware of, or were not informed of the rule.
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, the Court finds that the present petition must be dismissed outright for failing to observe the proper procedure under the Rules of Court. Section 2 (a), Rule 41 of the said Rules provides in part:
"SEC. 2. Modes of appeal. -
(a) Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. x x x"
It is only in cases where purely questions of law are raised or involved that an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 may be made, which petitioner failed to show in this case.
Moreover, the Court finds no reversible error to have been committed by the RTC in upholding the right of LSGH to regulate the admission of its students, being a valid exercise of its constitutional right to academic freedom.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 51-56.[2] Id. at pp. 57-59.