Magtibay v Garcia
144 Flores
Magtibay v Garcia
Facts
Lt.
Col. Santiago Q. Garcia, the Commander of the, U.P. ROTC Cadet Corps, issued
General Orders No. 23 which extinguished Arleo E. Magtibay of the rank of cadet
colonel and as battalion commander of the lst BCT of the U.P. Cadet Corps and
was excluded from those who would graduate in the class of the ROTC Advance
Course for flunking MS-42, a necessary subject for the completion of the
Advance Course. Magtibay had filed to the President of UP an administrative
case against Lt. Col. Santiago Q. Garcia for abuse of discretion and seeking to
no longer uphold the extinguish of his last rank. An investigation was
conducted by the President of UP and The Honorable Carlos P. Romulo to review
Magtibay’s case and scholastic record.
The
scholastic record had shown that Magtibay had received 37.2% in subject
proficiency and 0 % in aptitude and an attendance of 26% which would make the
total of his final grade in MS-42 63%. The passing score needed of Magtibay was
70%. The President of UP had issued a memorandum dismissing the complaint and
request re-enrollment of Magtibay to the same subject. Magtibay had then
petitioned a mandamus and quo warranto with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction against Garcia for the prayer to be reinstated in his former rank
and to be included in the list of graduating students.
Issue:
Whether the courts may review the exercise of discretion of a public officer on
matters in which it was his duty to act.
Ruling:
No,
the court cannot review the exercise of discretion of a public officer on
matters in which it was his duty to act by a writ of mandamus. The law imposes
that a public officer’s right and duty to exercise judgement is done based on
how he is required to act. The judgement of the public officer shall be
exercised and not the court’s.
In
the case at bar, the situation unfolded upon Magtibay was done on the basis of
failing a necessary subject needed to graduate. Although an institution of
learning is bound upon a contractual obligation to provided students a fair
opportunity to complete the course that he wishes to pursue, the contractual
obligation on the part of the student is forfeited when the student commits a
serious breach of discipline or fails to maintain the academic standard.
Therefore, in light of Magtibay’s failure in the necessary course the
obligation rendered from the school is no longer necessary as to permitting
Magtibay to graduate.
Comments
Post a Comment