SC rules in favor of USA in hazing case of students
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the University of San Agustin in a case involving five high school students who were dropped from its rolls on Nov. 28, 2002 after they were found guilty of hazing, a press release from the University said.
The students are Niño Carlo Jenosa, Patrick Canto, Cyndy Apalisok, Clint Eduard Vargas and Nonell Gregory Duro.
The SC, in its decision dated Sept. 8, 2010, affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals which ordered the Regional Trial Court Branch 29 in Iloilo City to dismiss the cases filed by the students and their parents against the University of San Agustin.
According to the University, the parents of the apprehended students had agreed in writing to transfer their children to another school, and the Committee on Student Discipline no longer investigated the hazing incident.
Five parents, however, reneged on their agreement with the University and in December 2002, they requested the Department of Education to intervene in their case.
In January 2003, without waiting for the DepEd to resolve their request, the parents filed a case before the trial court. In their complaint, the parents asked the court to direct the University to admit their children during the pendency of the case. In a second case filed by the same parents, they asked the trial court to direct the University to release the report cards of their children. In both instances, the trial court granted the request of the parents.
The Court of Appeals, however, directed the trial court to dismiss the cases filed by the parents. It found the trial court guilty of improper judicial intrusion and clearly committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in prematurely interfering with the exclusive and inherent authority of educational institutions to discipline its students.
“We are very happy and relieved with the Supreme Court decision,” University president Rev. Fr. Raul Marchan said.
The Committee on Student Discipline eventually found the five students guilty of hazing. The students were then ordered dropped from the rolls.
According to the SC, a court may deny a litigant relief if his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest as to the controversy in issue.
The High Tribunal found that the five students and their parents reneged on their agreement with the University to transfer to another school. They came to court with “unclean hands” as well as “inequitable and unfair conduct.”*
