Sincerely yours,

On January 18, 1995, private respondent wrote a letter to Commissioner Sedfrey Ordoñez, Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights, asking the commission’s intervention.18 [Commissioner Ordoñez sent a letter to the Board of Regents requesting it to defer action on private respondent’s case until the latter had been given the opportunity to be heard. U.P. President Emil Q. Javier responded with a letter, dated February 17, 1995, assuring Commissioner Ordoñez that the decision on private respondent’s case was arrived at after compliance with the requirements of due process.] In a letter, dated February 14, 1995, to Secretary Ricardo Gloria, Chairman of the Board of Regents, she asked for a reinvestigation of her case. She also sought an audience with the Board of Regents and/or the U.P. President, which request was denied by President Javier, in a letter dated June 2, 1995. Jksmä â Ó

On August 10, 1995, private respondent then filed a petition for mandamus with a prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and damages, which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-95-24690 and assigned to Branch 81 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City.19 [It appears that the case was later transferred to Branch 227.] She alleged that petitioners had unlawfully withdrawn her degree without justification and without affording her procedural due process. She prayed that petitioners be ordered to restore her degree and to pay her P500,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages and P1,500,000.00 as compensation for lost earnings.

On August 6, 1996, the trial court, Branch 227, rendered a decision dismissing the petition for mandamus for lack of merit.20 [Rollo, pp. 83-97.] Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on December 16, 1997, reversed the lower court. The dispositive portion of the appellate court’s decision reads:21 [Id., p. 56.]

Hence, this petition. Petitioners contend: Esâ msc

Petitioners argue that private respondent failed to show that she had been unlawfully excluded from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which she is entitled so as to justify the issuance of the writ of mandamus. They also contend that she failed to prove that the restoration of her degree is a ministerial duty of U.P. or that the withdrawal of the degree violated her right to the enjoyment of intellectual property. Esmsoâ

On the other hand, private respondent, unassisted by counsel, argue that petitioners acted arbitrarily and with grave abuse of discretion in withdrawing her degree even prior to verifying the truth of the plagiarism charge against her; and that as her answer to the charges had not been forwarded to the members of the investigating committees, she was deprived of the opportunity to comment or refute their findings.

In addition, private respondent maintains that petitioners are estopped from withdrawing her doctorate degree; that petitioners acted contrary to §9 of the U.P. Charter and the U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline of the University, which according to her, does not authorize the withdrawal of a degree as a penalty for erring students; and that only the college committee or the student disciplinary tribunal may decide disciplinary cases, whose report must be signed by a majority of its members.

We find petitioners’ contention to be meritorious. Jurismis

Mandamus is a writ commanding a tribunal, corporation, board or person to do the act required to be done when it or he unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, there being no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.23 [Rules of Court, Rule 65, §3; Anchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, 268 SCRA 301 (1997)] In University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Ligot-Telan,24 [227 SCRA 342 (1993)] this Court ruled that the writ was not available to restrain U.P. from the exercise of its academic freedom. In that case, a student who was found guilty of dishonesty and ordered suspended for one year by the Board of Regents, filed a petition for mandamus and obtained from the lower court a temporary restraining order stopping U.P. from carrying out the order of suspension. In setting aside the TRO and ordering the lower court to dismiss the student’s petition, this Court said:

In this case, the trial court dismissed private respondent’s petition precisely on grounds of academic freedom but the Court of Appeals reversed holding that private respondent was denied due process. It said:

As the foregoing narration of facts in this case shows, however, various committees had been formed to investigate the charge that private respondent had committed plagiarism and, in all the investigations held, she was heard in her defense. Indeed, if any criticism may be made of the university proceedings before private respondent was finally stripped of her degree, it is that there were too many committee and individual investigations conducted, although all resulted in a finding that private respondent committed dishonesty in submitting her doctoral dissertation on the basis of which she was conferred the Ph.D. degree. Edpmis

Indeed, in administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to explain one’s side of a controversy or a chance to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.27 [Helpmate, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. 112323, July 28, 1997; M. Ramirez Industries v. The Honorable Secretary of Labor and Employment, G.R. 89894, January 3, 1997.] A party who has availed of the opportunity to present his position cannot tenably claim to have been denied due process.28 [Naguiat v. National Labor Relations Commission, 269 SCRA 564 (1997)]

In this case, private respondent was informed in writing of the charges against her29 [Records, pp. 48-49.] and afforded opportunities to refute them. She was asked to submit her written explanation, which she forwarded on September 25, 1993.30 [Id., pp. 50-58.] Private respondent then met with the U.P. chancellor and the members of the Zafaralla committee to discuss her case. In addition, she sent several letters to the U.P. authorities explaining her position.31 [Id., pp. 59-65; 79-80.]

It is not tenable for private respondent to argue that she was entitled to have an audience before the Board of Regents. Due process in an administrative context does not require trial-type proceedings similar to those in the courts of justice.32 [National Federation of Labor v. NLRC, 283 SCRA 275 (1997)] It is noteworthy that the U.P. Rules do not require the attendance of persons whose cases are included as items on the agenda of the Board of Regents.33 [University of the Philippines v. Ligot-Telan, 227 SCRA 342 (1993)]

Nor indeed was private respondent entitled to be furnished a copy of the report of the Zafaralla committee as part of her right to due process. In Ateneo de Manila University v. Capulong,34 [222 SCRA 644 (1993)] we held: Misoedp

In this case, in granting the writ of mandamus, the Court of Appeals held:

Art. XIV, §5 (2) of the Constitution provides that "[a]cademic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of higher learning." This is nothing new. The 1935 Constitution35 [Art. XIV, §5.] and the 1973 Constitution36 [Art. XV, §8 (2)] likewise provided for the academic freedom or, more precisely, for the institutional autonomy of universities and institutions of higher learning. As pointed out by this Court in Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology,37 [68 SCRA 277 (1975)] it is a freedom granted to "institutions of higher learning" which is thus given "a wide sphere of authority certainly extending to the choice of students." If such institution of higher learning can decide who can and who cannot study in it, it certainly can also determine on whom it can confer the honor and distinction of being its graduates. Edpsc

Where it is shown that the conferment of an honor or distinction was obtained through fraud, a university has the right to revoke or withdraw the honor or distinction it has thus conferred. This freedom of a university does not terminate upon the "graduation" of a student, as the Court of Appeals held. For it is precisely the "graduation" of such a student that is in question. It is noteworthy that the investigation of private respondent’s case began before her graduation. If she was able to join the graduation ceremonies on April 24, 1993, it was because of too many investigations conducted before the Board of Regents finally decided she should not have been allowed to graduate.

Wide indeed is the sphere of autonomy granted to institutions of higher learning, for the constitutional grant of academic freedom, to quote again from Garcia v. Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, "is not to be construed in a niggardly manner or in a grudging fashion." Calrspped

Under the U.P. Charter, the Board of Regents is the highest governing body of the University of the Philippines.38 [Act No. 1870, §4.] It has the power to confer degrees upon the recommendation of the University Council.39 [Id., §9.] It follows that if the conferment of a degree is founded on error or fraud, the Board of Regents is also empowered, subject to the observance of due process, to withdraw what it has granted without violating a student’s rights. An institution of higher learning cannot be powerless if it discovers that an academic degree it has conferred is not rightfully deserved. Nothing can be more objectionable than bestowing a university’s highest academic degree upon an individual who has obtained the same through fraud or deceit. The pursuit of academic excellence is the university’s concern. It should be empowered, as an act of self-defense, to take measures to protect itself from serious threats to its integrity.

In the case at bar, the Board of Regents determined, after due investigation conducted by a committee composed of faculty members from different U.P. units, that private respondent committed no less than ninety (90) instances of intellectual dishonesty in her dissertation. The Board of Regents’ decision to withdraw private respondent’s doctorate was based on documents on record including her admission that she committed the offense.41 [Records, p. 192.] Supreme

On the other hand, private respondent was afforded the opportunity to be heard and explain her side but failed to refute the charges of plagiarism against her. Her only claim is that her responses to the charges against her were not considered by the Board of Regents before it rendered its decision. However, this claim was not proven. Accordingly, we must presume regularity in the performance of official duties in the absence of proof to the contrary.42 [Rules of Court, Rule 131, §3 (m)]

Very much the opposite of the position of the Court of Appeals that, since private respondent was no longer a student of the U.P., the latter was no longer within the "ambit of disciplinary powers of the U.P.," is private respondent’s contention that it is the Student Disciplinary Tribunal which had jurisdiction over her case because the charge is dishonesty. Private respondent invokes §5 of the U.P. Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline which provides:

Private respondent argues that under §25 (a) of the said Rules and Regulations, dishonesty in relation to one’s studies (i.e., plagiarism) may be punished only with suspension for at least one (1) year.

As the above-quoted provision of §5 of the Rules and Regulations indicates, the jurisdiction of the student disciplinary tribunal extends only to disciplinary actions. In this case, U.P. does not seek to discipline private respondent. Indeed, as the appellate court observed, private respondent is no longer within "the ambit of disciplinary powers of the U.P." Private respondent cannot even be punished since, as she claims, the penalty for acts of dishonesty in administrative disciplinary proceedings is suspension from the University for at least one year. What U.P., through the Board of Regents, seeks to do is to protect its academic integrity by withdrawing from private respondent an academic degree she obtained through fraud.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED and the petition for mandamus is hereby DISMISSED.

Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, and Buena, JJ., concur.