G.R. No. L-30773 - Felixberto C. Sta. Maria vs. Salvador P. Lopez, et al. Concurring OpinionJustice Castro Concurring OpinionJustice Fernando Concurring OpinionJustice Barredo

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-30773 February 18, 1970

FELIXBERTO C. STA. MARIA,petitioner,
vs.
SALVADOR P. LOPEZ, THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, and NEMESIO CERALDE,respondents.

V.E. del Rosario and Associates and Atienza, Tabora & del Rosario for petitioner.

Crispin D. Baizas for respondent Nemesio Ceralde.

SANCHEZ,J.:

Directly under attack in this an original action forcertiorari,prohibition andmandamusis the validity of the transfer of petitioner Felixberto C. Sta.Maria from his post of Dean, College of Education, University of the Philippines (UP), to the Office of respondent UP President Salvador P. Lopez, there to become Special Assistant in charge of public information and relations.

Petitioner, a professor of English and Comparative Literature (formerly Dean of the UP College in Baguio), was elected Dean of the College of Education on May 5, 1967 by the Board of Regents, on nomination of the UP President. His appointment as such Dean was for a five year term, "effective May 16, 1967 until May 17, 1972, unless sooner terminated, with all the rights and privileges as well as the duties and obligations attached to the position in accordance with the rules and regulations of the University and the Constitution and laws of the Republic of the Philippines.

The issues in this case can be better understood if framed in its proper setting,viz:

As far back as February 11, 1969, the graduate and undergraduate students of the UP College of Education presented to President Salvador P. Lopez a number of demands having a bearing on the general academic program1and the physical plant and services,2with a cluster of special demands.3In response, President Lopez created a committee composed of eight graduate students, two undergraduate students, and four faculty members. This committee met 9 times with Dean Sta. Maria in February and March 1969. On March 17, 1969, Dean Sta. Maria gave President Lopez a written summary of the dialogues he had with the committee and enumerated in connection with the demands, the steps taken,4the steps being taken5and the steps ito be taken in consultation with the faculty.6He also recommended to the UP President the following: a more adequate budget responsive to the needs of the college, taking into account its expanding graduate program; improvement of the library service in terms of a better book collection and more adequate space and reading rooms, particularly for graduate students; appointment of more faculty members on the senior level to handle the large graduate program, and to meet the acute need for more graduate advisers, critics, and committee members; improvement of the water system of the college; improvement of the physical plant of the college, including its classrooms, offices, toilets, sidewalks and surrounding landscape; and construction of a graduate students' dormitory.

But the students were not to be appeased. For, Dean Sta. Maria, according to them, did not act on some of their demands. Respondents herein have stressed that in the meetings of the education graduate committee, Dean Sta. Maria neither included in the agenda nor consulted the faculty about the students' demands on "foreign language proficiency examination" and on "research and thesis writing pressures". They have brought out the fact that many members of the faculty shared the students' grievances on the absence of definite standards and procedures on academic work, including teaching load, administrative and committee assignments, faculty evaluation, and favoritism and discrimination.

On July 16, 1969, Adelaida E. Masuhud, President of the UP Graduate Education Student Organization., led a group who visited President Lopez and submitted to him a progress report on the students' demands taken up with Sta. Maria since March 26, 1969. She acknowledged that the dean had granted ten demands7but deplored the fact that the dean had ignored the following; submission to the faculty for decision, of the demand for abolition of foreign language requirements and comprehensive examinations; fixing the criteria for selection, admission, appointment and promotion of faculty members; formulation of clear-cut policies on thesis advising, faculty teaching load, and faculty membership on standing committees; and appointment of a permanent director for the Graduate Education Studies of the SPED Program. She thus stated: "I appreciate the efforts of the Dean in acting On some of our demands. However, the Dean has failed to take further action on the demands that have far reaching implications for the students, faculty and the College as a whole. As a consequence problems, confusion and demoralization of students and faculty have cropped up anew in the college."

The students threatened to boycott their classes the next day, July 17. President Lopez asked that they desist, suggested that they instead attend a student-faculty meeting the next day in his office.ℒαwρhi৷

But on July 17, the Education Graduate Student Organization boycotted their classes just the same. The President met the striking students' representatives and the faculty members of the College of Education. Charges of favoritism were allegedly hurled by some of the faculty members against Sta. Maria. On the other hand, the dean offered to sit down with the students.The latter, however, refused to enter into a dialogue unless he (the dean) were first ousted.

In a separate development, the faculty members of the College of Education convened in the afternoon of July 22. They resolved, amongst others, to recognize the right of a college dean to his position from which he cannot be removed unless for cause (44 in favor, 2 abstained), and not to endorse the students' demand for the forced resignation of Sta. Maria (36 in favor, 5 against, 3 abstained).

The boycott fever infected other colleges. On July 22, 1969, the newly installed members of the UP Student Council voted to support the education students' strike. The next day, July 23, the main avenues leading to the university gates were barricaded, buses denied entrance, and students cajoled into joining the strike. It was thus on that day that all academic activity in the university came to a complete stand still. In the morning of July 23, at 10:00 o'clock, the UP President called a meeting of the faculty of the College of Education. Those present gave him a vote of confidence (40 in favor, 7 abstained) to resolve the issue on hand as he sees fit.

Armed with the vote of confidence of the education faculty, on the same day, July 23, 1969, President Lopez issued the transfer order herein challenged, Administrative Order 77. That order, addressed to Dean Sta. Maria, reads:

Simultaneously, President Lopez appointedad interimProfessor Nemesio R. Ceralde as "acting Dean of the College of Education, without additional compensation, effective July 23, 1969".

President Lopez was to explain in a press statement of July 23, 1969 that he "cannot permit the continued disruption of the academic life of the institution"; that the transfer order was made "[i]n the interest of the service" and "as an emergency measure" because the meetings with the faculty, students, Sta. Maria and the UP President had "proved fruitless in the face ofthe refusal of the College of Education students to discuss any further their demands unless and until Dean Sta. Maria resigns his position"; and that, therefore, "the complete shut-down of classes in the Diliman campus has compelled" him to "transfer Dean Sta. Maria to other duties".

Having received the transfer order on the same day, July 23, Sta. Maria forthwith wrote a letter, which he himself hand carried to President Lopez, requesting that "(a) a formal investigation be conducted by the Board of Regents on the circumstances which led to the promulgation of the above order, and on the basis thereof; and (b) said order be reconsidered and set aside forbeing manifestly unjust, unfair, unconstitutional, and contrary to law, and, therefore, null and void."

The next day, July 24, Sta. Maria announced to the education students and faculty, through Memorandum 17, that the transfer order "is now the subject of a pending request for reconsideration ... and, for this reason, its effectivity is necessarily suspended", and that he shall continue "to be the Dean ... pursuant to his appointment as such for the period from January 1, 1968 to May 15, 1972."

On July 25, 1969, the education faculty signed a "Declaration of Concern" stating, amongst others, that when they gave President Lopez a vote of confidence, they "did so in the belief and confidence that he ... will uphold the democratic processes in the solution of the problem and will respect the fundamental rights of the individual." Similar declarations of concern came from the faculties of law, medicine, arts and sciences, and nursing.

At President Lopez' request, a special meeting of the Board of Regents was held on July 25, 1969. President Lopez there reported Dean Sta. Maria's transfer and Professor Ceralde'sad interimappointment as Acting Dean of the College of Education. He told the board that because of "failure of leadership in the College of Education, a crisis of confidence emerged in that institution"; that the ultimate result was the boycott of classes by the students "starting on July 17, 1969 in protest against the inaction of Dean Sta. Maria on their demands submitted months ago"; and that this situation impelled him to issue Administrative Order 77 "as demanded by the prevailing crisis."

The board confirmed Dean Sta. Maria's transfer and Professor Ceralde's appointment, considered as premature Sta. Maria's Memorandum 17 heretofore mentioned, but gave due course to his plea for reconsideration and granted him a chance to be heard at the next board meeting on July 29, 1969.

In the said meeting of July 29, Sta. Maria did not personally appear. He sent his counsel who manifested that Sta. Maria was not recognizing the board's jurisdiction unless, without further hearing, the board first revoke the transfer order. The board resolved: "... to take cognizance and consider asa new petitionof Dean Sta. Maria, submitted through counsel, his declaration that the efficacy of the President's Administrative Order No. 77 transferring him should first be suspended by the Board and held in abeyance as a prerequisite f or the hearing being prayed for. In this connection, Dean Sta. Maria will be asked to file a Memorandum with the Board in support of his new petition."

The foregoing had been the developments when Sta. Maria filed the present petition forcertiorari,prohibition andmandamusin this Court on July 31, 1969 against respondents Salvador P. Lopez, the Board of Regents and Nemesio R. Ceralde.

The case is now ripe for decision.

1. Discussion of the issues herein involved necessarily has to start with the examination of the terms of employment, the covenant which binds petitioner with the university. The contract, it bears repeating, stipulates that the dean's five-year term is qualified by the clause: "unless sooner terminated, with all the rights and privileges as well as the duties and obligations attached to the position in accordance with the rules and regulations of the University and the Constitution and laws of the Republic of the Philippines." The authority for this appointment is found in Article 79 of the university code providing that "[t]he term of office of all deans ... shall be five years from the date of their appointment without prejudice to reappointment and until their successors shall have been appointed.

We first look into the meaning of the phrase "unless sooner terminated" embodied in the contract of employment. Right at the start, it would seem to us that the term "unless sooner terminated" cannot be equated or tied up with some such terms as "terminable at will", or "removable at pleasure".

A number of reasons there are why petitioner may not be removed at pleasure before the expiry of his term.First.Petitioner's contract of employment has a fixed term of five years. It is not an appointment in an acting capacity.9Nor is petitioner's designation that of an officer-in-charge as it is known in administrative practice.Second.Nothing in the rules and regulations of the university or its charter would indicate that a college dean appointed with a term can be separated without cause. On the contrary, reason there is to be believe that the university policy points quite to the contrary. An instance is the resolution of the Board of Regents of June 14, 1961, fixing the term of office of the UP President. It was there stated that "uncertainty of tenure and frequency of change in the incumbent of the position are not for the best interests of the University." This concept is self-evident.Third.Again, there is nothing either in the UP charter or code empowering the UP President or the Board of Regents to insert such a clause — unless sooner terminated — as would authorize dismissal at will.Fourth.As this Court, inLacson vs. Roque,92 Phil. 456, 463, ruled, "strict construction of law relating to suspension and removal, is the universal rule." Petitioner, with a definite term of employment, may not thus be removed except for cause. The reasons being that the removal was not expressly declared to be exercisable at pleasure or at will; and that the fixity of the term of office gives rise to the inference that he may be removed from office only for misbehavior as to which he shall be entitled to notice and hearing. As was well pointed out inLacson vs. Roque,"[a]n inferential authority to remove at pleasure can not be deduced, since the existence of a defined term,ipso factonegatives such an inference and implies a contrary presumption,i.e.,that the incumbent shall hold office to the end of his term subject to removal for cause."10

The foregoing paves the way for the consideration of what we believe is the overriding question: Was Sta. Maria removed?

2. Respondents stand on the premise that Sta. Maria was not removed; he was just temporarily assigned to another position.

We may well start with the statement that a dean of a UP college holds a non-competitive or unclassified civil service position.11As such, and upon the provisions of his contract of employment, he is protected by constitutional and statutory provisions on security of term.12He cannot be removed during the term except for cause and after prior hearing and investigation.13Which requisites are also embodied in the university charter14and in the university code."15

But is there really need for a formal prior hearing? No need, respondents say. For, the Civil Service Law requires prior hearing only in cases of removal, dismissal or suspension. Sta. Maria, respondents underscore, was not suspended, dismissed or removed; he was merely transferred to another position without reduction in salary or rank in the interest of public service.16Respondents proceed to aver that the transfer was neither disciplinary nor punitive.17A promotion, so they claim, because in the new position he would be an officer of the university not just of one college;18he would enjoy a rank at par with senior college deans;19and that he would be in line for one of the vice-presidencies of the university.20Respondents also say that such transfer was an emergency measure to stave off a crisis that gripped the campus — the paralyzing disruption of classes.21They emphasize that there was an urgent and genuine need for petitioner's talents and services in the newly created Public Affairs and University Relations Office.

Quite interesting it is to inquire whether Dean Sta. Maria was transferred, promoted, demoted, or removed without his consent.

3. A transfer is a "movement from one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary, without break in service."22Promotion is the "advancement from one position to another with an increase in duties and responsibilities as authorized by law, and usually accompanied by an increase in salary."23

A transfer that results in promotion or demotion, advancement or reduction24or a transfer that aims to "lure the employee away from his permanent position", cannot be done without the employee's consent.25For that would constitute removal from office. Indeed, no permanent unless the officer or employee is transfer can take place unless the officer of the employee is first removed from the position held, and then appointed to another position.26

When an officer is reduced in rank or grade and suffers a big cut in pay, he is demoted;27and when he is demoted, he is removed from office.28But a demotion means something more than a reduction in salary: there may be a demotion in the type of position though the salary may remain the same.29A transfer that aims by indirect method to terminate services or to force resignation also is removal.30

4. Concededly transfers there are which do not amount to removal. Some such transfers can be effected without the need for charges being preferred, without trial or hearing, and even without the consent of the employee.

The clue to such transfers may be found in the "nature of the appointment."31Where the appointment does not indicate a specific station, an employee may be transferred or reassigned provided the transfer affects no substantial change in title, rank and salary. Thus, one who is appointed "principal in the Bureau of Public Schools" and is designated to head a pilot school may be transferred to the post of principal of another school.32

And the rule that outlaws unconsented transfers as anathema to security of tenure applies only to an officer who is appointed — not merely assigned — to a particular station.33Such a rule does not prescribe a transfer carried out under a specific statute that empowers the head of an agency to periodically reassign the employees and officers in order to improve the service of the agency.34The use of approved techniques or methods in personnel management to harness the abilities of employees to promote optimum public service cannot be objected to.35Neither does illegality attach to the transfer or reassignment of an officer pending the determination of an administrative Charge against him;36or to the transfer of an employee from his assigned station to the main office, effected in good faith and in the interest of the service pursuant to Section 82 of the Civil Service Act.37

5. The next point of inquiry is whether or not Administrative Order 77 would stand the test of validityvis-a-visthe principles just enunciated.

That the university is vested with corporate powers exercised by the board of regents and the President is a proposition which is not open to question.38The board, upon recommendation of the President, is clothed with authority to hire and fire after investigation and hearing.39The President, on the other hand, may fill vacancies temporarily,40transfer faculty members41from one department to another,42and make arrangements to meet emergencies occurring between board meetings so that the work of the university may not suffer.43

To be stressed at this point, however, is that the appointment of Sta. Maria is that of "Dean, College of Education, University of the Philippines." He is not merely a dean "in the university". His appointment is to a specific position; and, more importantly, to a specific station.

A line of distinction must be drawn between the office of dean and that of professor, say, of English and Comparative Literature. A professor in the latter capacity may be assigned to handle classes from one college to another or to any other unit in the university where English is offered. He may even be transferred from graduate school to undergraduate classes. He cannot complain if such was done without his consent. He has no fixed station.44As for him, it can always be argued that the interests of the service are paramount.

But a college dean holding an appointment with a fixed term stands on a different plane. He cannot, without his consent, be transferred before the end of his term. He cannot be asked to give up his post. Nor may he be appointed as dean of another college. Much less can he be transferred to another position even if it be dignified with a dean's rank.45

6. We now come to the problem of whether or not petitioners transfer from the College of Education to the Office of the President as special assistant with the rank of dean without reduction in salary was permanent. Facts there are which would show that far from being a temporary measure, petitioner's transfer was in fact a removal.

Respondent university president himself admitted that the transfer order was anad interimappointment. That the transfer was a removal has been confirmed by the UP President's reference to Sta. Maria's deanship of the College of Education as his "former position". This plainly indicates that Sta. Maria ceased to be dean of the college. Thus:

The validity of Dean Sta. Maria's designation or appointment as Special Assistant to the President rests upon two acts:

And again:

Not that the foregoing stand alone. The reasons advanced by respondents to justify such transfer are quite revealing. They pictured Sta. Maria as a bungling administrator, incompetent, inefficient, unworthy, a miscast. They averred that he did not act on the petitions and grievances of graduate students; that he caused widespread dissatisfaction amongst faculty members and students because of his "inaction", his "lack of sincerity and candor in dealing" with them, that he was guilty of "inflexible arrogant attitude and actuation" as dean; that he miserably failed to avert a boycott that was caused by a "crisis of confidence" and "failure of leadership" in his college; that he abandoned his post when he was most needed; that he refused to accept solutions even as he failed to advance his own to mitigate the crisis; that in sum, he was a miscast in the College of Education.48Of course, these are merely charges. But they collectively reflect the thinking of respondents toward petitioner. In the picture thus presented, it would not be unreasonable to say that Sta. Maria's transfer was with the character of permanence to take him away from his duties and responsibilities as dean, in all of which allegedly he was a failure.

And if more were needed to show that the transfer of Sta. Maria was permanent, there is the fact that Nemesio Ceralde was appointed "ad interim" acting dean of the College of Education. And, Ceralde's appointment was confirmed by the Board of Regents on July 25, 1969. Again, there is respondent's averment that petitioner's new position as special assistant to the President could be a stepping-stone to a higher position — that of Vice Presidency of the university. Were his appointment but temporary, there would be no occasion to say that he could be elevated to another position of a higher category.

More than this, the transfer was a demotion. A demotion, because:First,Deanship in a university, being an academic position which requires learning, ability and scholarship, is more exalted than that of a special assistant who merely assists the President, as the title indicates. The special assistant does not make authoritative decisions.Second.The position of dean is a line position where the holder makes authoritative decisions in his own name and responsibility. A special assistant does not rise above the level of staff position.Third.The position of dean is created by law, the university charter, and cannot be abolished even by the Board of Regents. That of special assistant, upon the other hand, is not so provided by law; it was a creation of the university president.

It will not avail respondents any to say that Sta. Maria retained "the rank of Dean". In actual administrative practice, the terms "with rank of" dean is meaningless. He is no dean at all. He of course, basks, in the trappings of the dean. A palliative it could have been intended to be. But actually he is a dean without a college.

7. Respondents nonetheless insist that the "interest of the service" is the primary reason for the transfer. They say that there was an urgent need to bring the academic life of the university back to normal and Sta. Maria's transfer was the only feasible solution. They point to the need for petitioner's services in the Office of Public Affairs and University Relations purportedly "to improve the relations of the University with its various constituencies." They cling to the principle of "least sacrifice.49They urge that only three options were left to the university, namely: to keep Sta. Maria at all costs and risk an indefinite paralysis of the university life; to give due course to the charges filed against Sta. Maria, preventively suspend him during the investigation, and after hearing dismiss him if the evidence so warrants; and to transfer him as a non-disciplinary measure in the interest of the service. Respondents claim that the first option was out of the question. The reason they give is that the university could not afford an indefinite disruption of academic life. To respondents, the second was feasible but distasteful — the administration was in no mood to prejudice Sta. Maria through a proceeding that would reflect on his record. So the university administration opted for the third method, a solution said to be the most convenient and expeditious and based on the principle of "least sacrifice".

Implicit in the university's stand is that Dean Sta. Maria had to be uprooted from his position as a price to buy the peace of the students and induce them to return to their classes. Such could have been an easy way to climb out of difficulties. But transfer could be but a ploy to cover dismissal. And dismissal cannot be justified on grounds of expediency. Appropriately to be remembered here is that due process is associated with the sporting idea of fair play;50it shuns oppression and eschews unfair dealing; it obeys the dictates of justice and is ruled by reason. The Scriptures no less remind us to hear before we condemn.51Fidelity to this cardinal principle must have impelled Congress, just recently, to clarify the authority to transfer subordinate officers and employees, an authority so often misused and abused to ride roughshod over hapless civil servants. As amended, the Civil Service Law provides that "if the employee believes that there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case ... and pending his appeal and decision thereon, his transfer shall be held in abeyance." This was intended to fortify the protective wall built around the employee's right to security of tenure, to guard against unbridled encroachments masquerading in the "interest of the service". And, to think that this amendment came just a few days after Sta. Maria was transferred without prior hearing.

The current climate of activism of the young people, recognized to be worldwide, whether on or off campus, is a phenomenon in this country that commands attention. Demonstrations and boycotts which are manifestations of such activism are constitutionally protected. But there are limits. A fundamental precondition to the exercise of such rights, we perceive, is that the activity should not impair the rights of others whose roots are as deep and as equally protected by iron-clad guarantees. A high regard to a man's dignity is the hallmark of our law.

The students demanded Sta. Maria's ouster. The President of the university acceded to their demand. But Sta. Maria's right to be removed only, in the words of the law, "after due process" was disregarded. That Sta. Maria's right alone was impaired is not justification for the action taken against him. Unless, of course, justice be-replaced by collective action as the test for validity. And, unless we admit that arbitrariness is permissible if it comes from an impersonal multitude.

Nor may it be assumed that emergency could justify disregard of constitutional rights. It would seem pertinent to observe that a fundamental charter is for all times and for all conditions. Eloquent are these passages from the declaration of concern from the College of Law faculty:

8. The argument that the transfer of Sta. Maria was made in the interest of public service has dwindled in strength on the face of the circumstances. Of course, the university is under compulsion to bring normalcy to the campus, to end the boycott of classes. The decision to transfer could really refract the temper of the times. We do say, however, that emotion or muscle need not displace reason.

Nor do we believe it too difficult for the authorities to hew to the line drawn by the due process clause, to cause charges to be formalized, Sta. Maria suspended, and given a fair chance to defend himself. This procedure does not necessarily bring about humiliation. On the contrary, it exudes the spirit of fairness.

The baneful effects of Sta. Maria's transfer were easily and promptly felt. The professors in different faculties were alarmed. Obviously they felt that to compel a professor to give up his constitutional right is beyond tolerance. A declaration of concern was expressed not only by the faculty of the College of Law as aforesaid but also the Colleges of Education, Arts and Sciences, Medicine and PGH School of Nursing, all of the UP.

More than these, such transfer undermined the integrity of UP. The university buckled under strain, yielded where it should have upheld its commitment to the rule of law. Peace may not be secured at the expense of consecrate constitutional principles. A contrary rule could lead to more serious disorders.

9. Respondents urge that "the traditional concepts and requirements of due press could not be made to apply to every kind of administrative action, without the consequent inefficiency and frustration of legislative purpose." They argue that certain types of administrative action may be taken without prior hearing and still satisfy the requirements of due process. The existence of a public emergency, they insist, would suffice to justify summary action. To prop up their stand, respondents cite such summary administrative actions as distraint of a delinquent taxpayer's property;53abatement of a nuisance per sep;54cancellation of a passport of one who absconds to another country to evade criminal prosecution.55

No question that a summary administrative action is appropriate in the cases cited. Examples can be multiplied. Thus, without providing for a prior hearing, a bank conservator may seize a distressed bank;56the Food and Drug Administrator may confiscate harmful drugs whose labels are allegedly misleading;57the Civil Aeronautics Board may suspend a letter of registration;58and the Securities and Exchange Commission may suspend the license of a securities dealer to deal in small offerings.59In all these cases, the courts have uniformly ruled that due process does not require judicial inquiry as a condition to the exercise of administrative discretion. "It is sufficient, where only property rights are concerned, that there is at some stage an opportunity for a hearing and a judicial determination."60

We can go on citing cases where regulatory agencies, in a manner of speaking, shoot first before asking questions without offending against due process. But it is pointless to cite them here, much less rely upon them to support Sta. Maria's unconsented transfer. For central to those cases is that they involve the exercise of regulatory authority pursuant to a delegated police power. The reason these agencies are given such summary powers is that they come to grip with issues that are mostly scientific and technical, issues that are "perhaps not readily reducible to the simple question-and-answer method so dearly beloved by lawyers."61Hence, in place of formal hearing they resort to inspection, examination and testing — techniques regarded as sufficient substitutes upon which to base an administrative action.62Whether poultry is putrid, or drug is harmful, or a ship is unseaworthy, are matters better left to scientific analysis or technical inspection without the need of a formal hearing. Based on such examination and inspection, summary orders for condemnation or confiscation may follow.

But the UP President's decision to summarily take the deanship away from Sta. Maria cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be cast in the same type of administrative actions that regulatory agencies exercise under a delegated police power. The UP President's action here is unlike that, for instance, of the Central Bank in removing the officers of a floundering bank in order to take over its management.63Not even the so-called emergency situation in the campus could be invoked to firm up his summary action. Seemingly, the decision to transfer Sta. Maria was dictated by the howling protest of demonstrating students who wanted to muscle in their demands for curriculum changes. But precisely, it is in situations such as this that one should be on guard lest reason and justice be overwhelmed by excitement and passion.

10. Again, respondents cite the so called "crisis of confidence" and "failure of leadership" in the College of Education. Allegedly, these factors caused the student boycott which UP tried to avert by the expedient of banishing Sta. Maria from, and effectively depriving him of his deanship, of the College of Education.

The boycott, we are made to understand, was called because Sta. Maria resisted the pressures exerted by the graduate students. He refused to give in to their demands demands that sought to eliminate or influence the direction of curricular requirements, specifically those which pertain to foreign languages and comprehensive examinations. The graduate students, it is alleged, considered these requirements as "obsolete vestiges of colonial education, ... activities which do not in any way add to the learning activity of the student."64

Of course, students are entitled to petition school administrators for change in curriculum, faculty, and school regulations.65Elders should listen to what they say, and respond to their plea for university instructions that have relevance in their education.66

This is a fast changing age of ferment and activism. Every day new discoveries change man's life, morals, and attitude. The university therefore cannot remain aloof to the contemporary scene.67Perhaps the Wilsonian description of the ideal University as a place where "calm science" sits "not knowing that the world passes", a place where past and present are discussed "with knowledge and without passion", a place "slow to take excitement" and unlike the world outside "in its self-possession ..."68would now appear to be anachronistic.

The students are "probably right in much of what they say, however wrong their prescriptions for righting matters."69When they protest whether against the college administration or against the Establishment, they should be accorded the full scope of the constitutional protection to free speech and assembly.70On the other hand, any decision or action to give in to their demands mustnotbe dictated solely by their "readiness ... to shout down and in other ways to stifle the free expression of opinion of those with whom they disagree."71Otherwise, the probability exists that a minority group of students may succeed in their attempt to impose, by disruptive action, their views or their will on the majority. What indeed is deplorable is "when we are confronted only with violence for violences sake, and with attempts to frighten or intimidate an administration into doing things for which it can itself see neither the rationale nor the electoral mandate; when we are offered, as the only argument for change, the fact that a number of people are themselves very angry and excited; and when we are presented with a violent objection to what exists, unaccompanied by any constructive concept of what, ideally, ought to exist in its place."72

Compelling is the need to adhere to the traditional democratic processes and procedures to secure action and redress. Decisions that are prodded by ultimatums and tantrums are generally regarded with apprehension.

It was in the face of student revolt that the university officials buckled under and gave in to the students' protest against the continued presence of Dean Sta. Maria in the College of Education.

11. And yet, a close look into the so-called unfulfilled demands — abolition of foreign language and comprehensive examination — would reveal that. Dean Sta. Maria could not have unilaterally granted them.

On the foreign language requirement, the students manifested that it is —

On the comprehensive examination requirements, the students say:

These requirements, we believe, are aimed at the development of the student's depth of insight and breadth of view. This, after all, is an end that a university education strives to attain. Foreign languages, should be conceded, widen a man's world. Spanish, in particular, is one of the links to our past. We can but surmise that Dean Sta. Maria had cogent reasons to sidetrack the demands. It is within the realm of probabilities that the dean wanted to preserve the high standards of professional scholarship in the college. Perhaps he was loathe to turn his college into a factory for half-baked graduates. The University of the Philippines, we must remember, has set a standard and established a tradition for learning and leadership.

Consider, too, the fact that the education students are the future mentors of the youth. Necessarily, they are expected to come through college with as thorough and extensive preparation as possible if they are to serve as educational leaders and models for scholarship.

On top of all, Dean Sta. Maria cannot single-handy do away with these requirements. The responsibility for fixing the academic requisites for graduation and the receiving of a degree is lodged not in the dean but in the university council, composed of the President of the university and all faculty members from assistant professor to full professor.75The Dean may only recommend proposals affecting courses of study."76

But Dean Sta. Maria had not been remiss in his duties. Truth to tell, the students admit that Dean Sta. Maria was not after all unreasonably inflexible, intransigent He sympathetically listened to them, and broadly satisfied those demands that were within his power as Dean to give, short of compromising the academic standards of the university. indeed, the President of the Education Graduate Student Organization appreciated the Dean's efforts to meet some of our demands". But Dean Sta. Maria could go no further. He went along with the students as far as the limits of his power and discretion would allow him to go. Only the University Council and the Board of Regents could recast the academic requirements in the way the students wanted them to be. If so, why did they not act on the issue to avert the crisis? But perhaps the university administration would not want to risk the downgrading of the university's academic standards.

The editor of the Philippine Collegian, writing the valedictory editorial, said:

It is because of all the foregoing that we are left under no doubt that petitioner Felixberto Sta. Maria is entitled to be restored to his position as Dean of the College of Education.+3u.7!ydmb7

12. Just as we are about to draw this opinion to a close, our attention is drawn to the alleged non exhaustion of administrative remedies. A sufficient answer would be that Dean Sta. Maria asked that he be restored to his position pending investigation of any charge against him. But the board refused. Instead, it confirmed thead interimappointment of respondent Prof. Nemesio Ceralde as "acting Dean" in place of Sta. Maria. Virtually the door was closed. Nothing was left for Sta. Maria to do but go to Court.78

Of course, Sta. Maria stood pat on his right to keep his position as Dean. This is perfectly understandable. Hindsight now reveals that further pursuit of administrative remedy before the Board of Regents would be but an act of supererogation At any rate, there is no compelling reason to resort to this remedy.79Here, the claimed right is the constitutionally protected due process. Mandamus will lie.80

FOR THE REASONS GIVEN,the writ ofcertiorariand prohibition prayed for is hereby granted; the transfer of petitioner Felixberto C. Sta. Maria from his position as Dean of the College of Education, University of the Philippines, to the position of Special Assistant to the President, University of the Philippines, as well as thead interimappointment of Prof. Nemesio Ceralde "as acting Dean" of the College of Education, University of the Philippines, are hereby set aside and declared null and void; the writ ofmandamusprayed for is hereby granted, and the President and the Board of Regents of the University of the Philippines are hereby ordered to restore said petitioner Felixberto C. Sta. Maria to his position of Dean, College of Education, University of the Philippines.

No costs. So ordered.

Dizon, Zaldivar, Teehankee, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., Makalintal, and Reyes, J.B.L., JJ., took no part.

Footnotes