1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

TodayisFriday,January08,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.211362February24,2015
FIRSTCLASSCADETALDRINJEFFP.CUDIAofthePhilippineMilitaryAcademy,representedbyhisfather
RENATOP.CUDIA,whoalsoactsonhisownbehalf,andBERTENICATALUNACAUSING,Petitioners,
vs.
THESUPERINTENDENTOFTHEPHILIPPINEMILITARYACADEMY(PMA),THEHONORCOMMITTEE(HC)
OF2014OFTHEPMAandHCMEMBERS,andtheCADETREVIEWANDAPPEALSBOARD(CRAB),
Respondents.
xx
FILIPINAP.CUDIA,inbehalfofCADETFIRSTCLASSALDRINJEFFP.CUDIA,andonherownbehalf,
PetitionerIntervenor.
DECISION
PERALTA,J.:
The true test of a cadet's character as a leader rests on his personal commitment to uphold what is morally and
ethicallyrighteousatthemostcriticalandtryingtimes,andatthemostchallengingcircumstances.Whenacadet
mustfaceadilemmabetweenwhatistrueandrightasagainsthissecurity,wellbeing,pleasuresandcomfort,or
dignity,whatisatstakeishishonorandthosethat[define]hisvalues.Amanofanhonorablecharacterdoesnot
thinktwiceandchoosesthefore.Thisistheessenceofand.theSpiritoftheHonorCodeitischampioningtruth
andrighteousnessevenifitmaymeanthesurrenderofone'sbasicrightsandprivileges.1
TheProceduralAntecedents
SixdayspriortotheMarch16,2014graduationceremoniesofthePhilippineMilitaryAcademy(PMA),petitioners
Renato P. Cudia, acting for himself and in behalf of his son, Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia (Cadet JCL
Cudia),andBerteniCataluftaCausingfiledthispetitionforcertiorari,prohibition,andmandamuswithapplicationfor
extremelyurgenttemporaryrestrainingorder(TRO).2
InaResolutiondatedMarch17,2014,theCourtdeniedtheprayerforTROandinstead,requiredrespondentsto
filetheircommentonthepetition.3
OnMarch25,2014,FilipinaP.Cudia,actingforherselfandinbehalfofhersonCadet1CLCudia,filedamotionfor
leave to intervene, attaching thereto the petitioninintervention.4 Per Resolution dated March 31, 2014, the Court
grantedthemotionandresolvedtoawaitrespondents'commentonthepetition.5
A manifestation was then filed by petitioners on April 3, 2014, recommending the admission of the petitionin
intervention and adopting it as an integral part of their petition.6 On May 20, 2014, petitionerintervenor filed a
manifestation with motion for leave to admit the Final Investigation Report of the Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) dated April 25, 2014.7 The Report8 was relative to CHRCAR Case No. 20140029 filed by the spouses
Renato and Filipina Cudia (Spouses Cudia), for themselves and in behalf of their son, against the PMA Honor
Committee(HC)membersandMajorVladimirP.Gracilla(Maj.Gracilla)9forviolationofCadetlCLCudia'srightsto
dueprocess,education,andprivacyofcommunication.Subsequently,onJune3,2014,petitionersfiledamotionfor
leavetoadoptthesubmissionoftheCHRReport.10Themanifestationwasgrantedandthemotionwasnotedbythe
CourtinitsResolutiondatedJuly7,2014.
Afterfilingthreemotionsforextensionoftime,11respondentsfiledtheirConsolidatedComment12onJune19,2014.
Inamotion,petitionerintervenorfiledaReply,whichwaslateradoptedbypetitioners.13SubmittedasAnnex"A"of
theReplywasacopyoftheCHRResolutiondatedMay22,2014regardingCHRCARCaseNo.20140029.14We
notedandgrantedthesameonAugust11,2014andOctober13,2014.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

1/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

Petitionerintervenortwicefiledamanifestationwithmotiontosubmitthecaseforearlyresolution,15whichtheCourt
notedinaResolutiondatedAugust11,2014andOctober3,2014.16
TheFacts
Cadet1CLCudiawasamemberofSiklabDiwaClassof2014ofthePMA,thecountry'spremieremilitaryacademy
locatedatFortGregoriodelPilarinBaguioCity.Hebelongedtothe"A"CompanyandwastheDeputyBaronofhis
class. As claimed by petitioners and petitionerintervenor (hereinafter collectively called "petitioners," unless
otherwise indicated), he was supposed to graduate with honors as the class salutatorian, receive the Philippine
NavySaberasthetopNavycadetgraduate,andbecommissionedasanensignofthePhilippineNavy.
On November 14, 2013, the combined classes of the Navy and Air Force 1 CL cadets had a lesson examination
(LE)onOperationsResearch(OR432)underDr.MariaMonicaC.Costales(Dr.Costales)atthePMAFIRoom.Per
published schedule from the Headquarters Academic Group, the 4th period class in OR432 was from 1 :303:00
p.m.(1330H1500H),whilethe5thperiodclassinENG412wasfrom3:054:05p.m.(1505H1605H).
Fivedaysafter,ProfessorJuanitaBerong(Prof.Berong)ofthe5thperiodclassissuedaDelinquencyReport(DR)
againstCadet1CLCudiabecausehewas"[/]atefortwo(2)minutesinhisEng412classxxx."17Cadets1CL
Narciso,Arcangel,Miranda,Pontillas,Diaz,Otila,andDelaCruzwerealsoreportedlateforfiveminutes.18
OnDecember4,2013,theDRsreachedtheDepartmentofTacticalOfficers.Theywereloggedandtransmittedto
the Company Tactical Officers ( CTO) for explanation of the concerned cadets. Two days later, Cadet lCL Cudia
receivedhisDR.
In his Explanation of Report dated December 8, 2013, Cadet lCL Cudia reasoned out that: "I came directly from
OR432Class.WeweredismissedabitlatebyourinstructorSir."19
OnDecember19,2013,MajorRommelDennisHindang(Maj.Hindang),theCTOofCadet1CLCudia,metedout
tohimthepenaltyof11demeritsand13touringhours.Immediately,CadetlCLCudiaclarifiedwithMaj.Hindanghis
alleged violation. The latter told him that the basis of the punishment was the result of his conversation with Dr.
Costales, who responded that she never dismissed her class late, and the protocol to dismiss the class 1015
minutes earlier than scheduled. When he expressed his intention to appeal and seek reconsideration of the
punishment,hewasadvisedtoputtherequestinwriting.Hence,thatsameday,Cadet1CLCudiaaddressedhis
Request for Reconsideration of Meted Punishment to Maj. Benjamin L. Leander, Senior Tactical Officer (STO),
asserting:
IstronglybelievethatIamnotincontrolofthecircumstances,our4thperiodclassended1500Hand
our5thperiodclass,whichisENG412,started1500Halso.Immediatelyafter4tperiodclass,Iwentto
mynextclasswithoutanyintentionofbeinglateSir.20
Adayafter,Maj.LeanderinstructedMaj.HindangtogivehiscommentsontherequestofCadet1CLCudiaandto
indicateiftherewereothercadetsbelongingtothesamesectionwhowerealsolate.
On December 28, 2013, Maj. Hindang submitted his reply to Maj. Leander pointing out that, based on his
investigation,the4thperiodclasswasnotdismissedlate.Asaresult,Maj.Leandersustainedthepenaltyimposed.
PetitionersallegedthatCadet1CLCudiacametoknowofthedenialofhisrequestonlyonJanuary24,2014upon
inquirywithMaj.Leander.
Severaldayspassed,andonJanuary7,2014,CadetlCLCudiawasinformedthatMaj.Hindangreportedhimtothe
HC21forviolationoftheHonorCode.TheHonorReportstated:
Lying that is giving statement that perverts the truth in his written appeal, stating that his 4th period
classendedatl500Hthatmadehimlateinthesucceedingclass.22
UponaskingtheHCChairman,Cadet1CLMikeAnthonyP.Mogol(Cadet1CLMogol),astowhatMaj.Hindang
meant in his Report, Cadet lCL Cudia learned that it was based on Maj. Hindang's conversations with their
instructors and classmates as well as his statement in the request for reconsideration to Maj. Leander. He then
verballyappliedforandwasgrantedanextensionoftimetoanswerthechargeagainsthimbecauseDr.Costales,
whocouldshedlightonthematter,wasonemergencyleave.
OnJanuary13,2014,Dr.CostalessenttextmessagestoCadetlCLCudia,conveying:
Gud pm cdt cudia. Mam belandres gave me bkground na. She told me its a report dated november.
Whenmajhindangaskme,notimereferens.(04:25:11P.M.)
AllthewhileIthothewasreferingtodismisalduringlastdaylastdecember.Whcitold,iwudpresume
theywilfinishearlybeeitsgrpwork.(04:29:21P.M.)23
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

2/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

Thenextday,CadetslCLCudiaandArcangelapproachedDr.Costales,whoreaffirmedthatsheandMaj.Hindang
werenotinthesametimereferencewhenthelatteraskedher.
Later,Cadet1CLCudiasubmittedhisletterofexplanationontheHonorReport.Heaverred:
Sir, We had an LE that day (14 November 2013) in OR432 class. When the first bell rang (1455), I
stoodup,reviewedmypaperandsubmittedittomyinstructor,Ms.Costales.Afterwhich,IandCadet
lcl Arcangel asked for some query with regards (sic) to the deductions of our previous LE. Our
instructor gladly answered our question. She then told me that she will give the copy of our section
grade, so I waited at the hallway outside the ACAD5 office, and then she came out of the room and
gavemeacopyofthegrades.CadetArcangel,CadetNarcisoandIimmediatelywenttoour5tiperiod
classwhichisENG412.
Withthesestatements,Iwouldliketoclarifythefollowing:
1.Howcouldthisbelying?
2.WhatiswrongwiththesideofMaj.Hindang(whydidhecomeuptothathonorreport)?
3.Whatarehisassumptions?
Iappeal,inthenameofclarity,fairnessandtruth[,]thatmycasebereopenedandcarefullyreviewed
forIdidnotviolatethehonorcode/system,IcananswerNOtobothquestions(DidIintendtodeceive?
DidIintendtotakeundueadvantage?)andforthefollowingreasons:
1.ThehonorreportofMaj.Hindangwasalreadysettledandfinalizedgiventhefactthatnoface
tofacepersonalconversationwithMs.Costaleswasconductedtoclarifywhatandwhenexactly
wastheissueathand.
2.Statementsoftherespondentssupportmyexplanation.
3. My explanation to my appeal to my DR (Request for reconsideration of meted punishment)
furthersupportsmyexplanationinmydelinquencyreport.
4. My understanding of the duration of the "CLASS" covers not just a lecture in a typical
classroominstructionbutincludeseverytransactionandcommunicationateacherdoeswithher
students,especiallythatinourcasesomecadetsaskedforqueries,andIamgiveninstruction
bywhich(sic)weredirectlyrelatedtoourCLASS.Hertransactionandcommunicationwithour
otherclassmatesmayhavealreadyendedbutoursextendedforalittlebit.
IagreeandconsiderthatbecauseCadetCUDIAisundermyinstructiontowait,and
theothercadetsstillhavebusinesswithme,itisreasonableenoughforhimtosay
that"Ourclasswasdismissedabitlate"(dealingwithmatterofsecondsoraminute
particularly45secondsto1minuteand30seconds)
Andwithconcernto(sic)OR432class,Icansayitendedontime(1500H).
(signed)
MCOSTALES
w/attachedcertification
5.Iwastransparentandhonestinexplainingthe2minutedelayanddidnotattempttoconceal
anythingthathappenedorIdid.
6. Furthermore, CPT DULA WAN PA, the Tactical Officer of Hawk Company[,] and I had a
conversationwithregards(sic)tothesamematterforwhichhecangiveimportantpointsofmy
case.
7.CadetlclDIAZ"D"CocanalsostandasawitnessthatIwaitedforMs.Costales.24
On January 15, 2014, the HC constituted a team to conduct a preliminary investigation on the reported honor
violationofCadet1CLCudia.TheFoxtrotCompanywasdesignatedastheinvestigatingteamandwascomposed
of Cadet 1 CL Hasigan as Presiding Officer, and Cadets 1 CL Mogol, lCL Raguindin, 2CL Gumilab, 2CL Saldua,
3CLEspejo,and3CLPoncardasasmembers.25Soonafter,theteamsubmitteditsPreliminaryInvestigationReport
recommendingthatthecasebeformalized.
TheformalinvestigationagainstCadet1CLCudiathenensued.ThePresidingOfficerwasCadet1CLRhonaK.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

3/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

Salvacion,whilethenine(9)votingmemberswereCadetslCLJairus0.Fantin,lCLBryanSonnyS.Arlegui,1CL
Kim Adrian R. Martal, 1 CL J eanelyn P. Cabrido, 1 CL ShuAydan G. Ayada, 1 CL Dalton John G. Lagura, 2CL
Renato A. Carifio, Jr., 2CL Arwi C. Martinez, and 2CL Niko Angelo C. Tarayao.26 Acting as recorders tasked to
documenttheentireproceedingswere4CLJenniferA.Cuarteronand3CLLeoncioNicoA.deJesus11.27Those
whoobservedthetrialwereCadets1CLBalmeo,Daguman,Hasigan,Raguindin,Paulino,Arcangel,andNarciso
Cadets2CLJocsonandSaldua,Jr.andCadet3CLUmaguing.28
ThefirstformalhearingstartedlateeveningofJanuary20,2014andlasteduntilearlymorningthenextday.Cadet
lCLCudiawasinformedofthechargeagainsthim,astowhichhepleaded"NotGuilty."Amongthosewhotestified
wereCadet1CLCudia,Maj.Hindang,andCadets1CLArcangelandNarciso.Onthesecondnightofthehearing
heldonJanuary21,2014,Cadet1CLCudiaagainappearedandwascalledtothewitnessstandalongwithCadets
BritandBarrawed.Dr.Costalesalsotestifiedunderoathviaphoneonaloudspeaker.DeliberationamongtheHC
votingmembersfollowed.Afterthat,theballotsheetsweredistributed.Thememberscasttheirvotesthroughsecret
ballotingandsubmittedtheiraccomplishedballotsheetstogetherwiththeirwrittenjustification.Theresultwas81in
favor of a guilty verdict. Cadet lCL Dalton John G. Lagura (Cadet lCL Lagura) was the lone dissenter. Allegedly,
upontheorderofHCChairmanCadet1CLMogol,thePresidingOfficerandvotingmemberswentinsideachamber
adjoining the court room for further deliberation. After several minutes, they went out and the Presiding Officer
announcedthe90guiltyverdict.Cadet1CLCudia,whoalreadyservednine(9)touringhours,wastheninformed
of the unanimous votes finding him guilty of violating the Honor Code. He was immediately placed in the PMA
HoldingCenteruntiltheresolutionofhisappeal.
OnJanuary24,2014,CadetICLCudiafiledawrittenappealaddressedtotheHCChairman,thefulltextofwhich
stated:
WRITTENAPPEAL
14NOVEMBER2013
This is when I was reported for "Late for two (2) minutes in Eng412 class", my explanation on this
delinquency report when I received it, is that "Our class was dismissed a (little) bit late and I came
directlyfrom4thperiodclass...etc".Knowingthefactthatinmydelinquencyreport,itisstatedthat
ENG412classesstarted1500HandIamlatefortwominutes,itislogicalenoughforI(sic)tointerpret
itas"Icame1502Hduringthatclass".Thisistheexplanationthatcameintomymindthattime.(Ijust
cannotrecalltheexactwordsIusedinexplainingthatdelinquencyreport,butwhatIwanttosayisthat
Ihavenointentiontobelate).Inmystatements,Iconveymymessageas"sinceIwasnottheonlyone
leftinthatclass,andtheinstructoriswithus,Iusedtheterm"CLASS",Iusedtheword"DISMISSED"
because I was under instruction (to wait for her to give the section grade) by the instructor, Ms.
Costales.Theothercadets(lCLMIRANDA,lCLARCANGEL)stillhavequeriesandbusinesswithher
thatmademedecidetousetheword"CLASS",whiletheotherswhodon'thavequeriesandbusiness
withher(ex:lCLNARCISOand1CLDIAZ)werealsoaround.
Note:
Thefournamedcadetswerealsoreportedlate.
Reference:Para171.0.(LeavingtheClassroomPriortoDismissalTime)(SecXVII,CCAFPRs2008)
Itisstatedinthisreferencethat"Cadetsshallnotlingerintheplaceofinstructionafterthesectionhas
beendismissed.EXCEPTwhentoldorallowedtodosobytheinstructororbyanycompetentauthority
forofficialpurposes."
TheinstructionbyMs.Costaleswasgiventomebeforethetwobellsrang(indicatingtheendofclass
hour, 1500H). I waited for her for about 45 seconds to 1 minute and 30 seconds, that made me to
decide to write "a little bit late" in my explanation. Truly, the class ENDED 1500H but due to official
purpose(instructionbyMs.Costalestowait)andtheconflictinacademicschedule(towhichIamnot
in control of the circumstances, 4th PD class 1330H1500H and 5th PD class 1500H1 600H), and
sinceMs.Costales,myotherclassmates,andIwerethere,Iusedtheword"CLASS".
19December2013
I was informed that my delinquency report was awarded, 11 Demerits and 13 Touring hours. Not
because I don't want to serve punishment, but because I know I did nothing wrong, I obeyed
instruction,andbelievingthatmyreasonisjustifiableandvalid,thatiswhyIapproachedourtactical
officer,MAJHINDANGPAF,toclarifyandaskwhyitwasawardedthatday.
In our conversation, he said that he had a phone call to my instructor and he even added that they
haveaprotocoltodismisstheclass,15minutesor10minutesbefore1500H.Iexplained:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

4/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

Sir,IstronglybelievethatIamnotincontrolofthecircumstances,our4thperiodclassended1500H
andour5thperiodclass,whichisENG412,started1500Halso.Immediatelyafter4thperiodclass,I
wenttomynextclasswithoutanyintentionofbeinglateSir.
Thesestatementsaresupplementarytomyexplanationinmydelinquencyreport,inhere,Ispecified
the conflict in the schedule and again, I have no intention to be late. After explaining it further with
thesestatements,mytacticalofficersaidthatsinceIwasreportedinawrittenform,Ishouldmakean
appealinawrittenform.ThinkingthathealreadyunderstoodwhatIwanttosay,Iimmediatelymade
anappealthatdaystatingthewordsthatIusedinhavingconversationwithhim.29
AttachedtothewrittenappealwasaCertificationdatedJanuary24,2014,whereinDr.Costalesattested:
1.ThatCadetMIRANDA,ARCANGEL,[and]NARCISOwas(sic)withCadetCUDIAinmakingqueryabout
theirlatestgradesinOR432and/orresultsofUEloutsidetheACADSoffice.Thefollowingfactsmayexplain
theirquerieson14November2013:
a.ThatIheldmyclassinthePMAFIroominsteadofroom104.
b.ThatOR432releasesgradeseveryWednesdayandcadetsareinformedduringThursday,eitherin
class or posted grades in the bulletin board (grades released was [sic J based on the previous LEs:
latestLEbeforeUEwasDecisionTrees).
c.ThatUEpaperswerealreadycheckedbutnotyetrecordeddueto(sic)othercadetshavenottaken
theUE.Cadetswereallowedtoverifyscoresbutnottolookatthepapers.
d.Last23January2014,CaptainDulawanclarifiedifindeedCadetNARCISOandARCANGELverified
grades.ThetwocadetssaidthattheyverifiedsomethingwithmeaftertheOR432classandtheywere
withCadetCUDIA.Thatthestatementsofthethree(3)cadetsareallthesameandconsistent,thus[,]
Ihonorthatastrue.
2.Astotheaspectofdismissinglate,IcouldnotreallyaccountforthespecifictimethatIdismissedtheclass.
To this date, I [cannot] really recall an account that is more than two (2) months earlier. According to my
records,therewasalecturefollowedbyanLEduring(sic)on14November2013.Todeterminethetimeof
mydismissal,maybeitcanbeverifiedwiththeothermembersofclassIwashandlingonthatsaiddate.30
RespondentscontendthattheHCdeniedtheappealthesameday,January24,asitfoundnoreasontoconducta
retrialbasedontheargumentsandevidencepresented.31Petitioners,however,claimthatthewrittenappealwas
notacteduponuntilthefilingofthepetitioninintervention.32
FromJanuary25toFebruary7,2014,respondentsallegethattheHeadquartersTacticsGroup(HTG)conductedan
informal review to check the findings of the HC. During the course of the investigation, Prof. Berong was said to
haveconfirmedwiththeOfficerinChargeoftheHCthatclassesstartedasscheduled(i.e.,3:05p.m.or1505H),
and that Cadet lCL Barrawed, the acting class marcher of ENG412, verified before the Commandant, Assistant
Commandant,andSTOthattheclassstartednotearlierthanscheduled.
Meantime, on February 4, 2014, the OIC of the HC forwarded the Formal Investigation Report to the Staff Judge
Advocate(SJA)forreview.Thenextday,theSJAfoundthereporttobelegallyinorder.
On February 8, 2014, Colonel Rozzano D. Briguez (Col. Briguez), the Commandant of Cadets, affirmed the HC
findings and recommended to Vice Admiral Edgar Abogado, then PMA Superintendent, the separation from the
PMAofCadetlCLCudiaforviolationoftheFirstTenetoftheHonorCode(Lying,pursuanttoSec.VII.12.bofthe
CCAFPRS2008).Onthesamedate,SpecialOrdersNo.26wasissuedbythePMAHeadquartersplacingCadet1
CLCudiaonindefiniteleaveofabsencewithoutpayandallowanceseffectiveFebruary10,2014pendingapproval
of his separation by the AFPGHQ, barring him from future appointment and/or admission as cadet, and not
permittinghimtoqualifyforanyentrancerequirementstothePMA.33
Twodayslater,ViceAdmiralAbogadoapprovedtherecommendationtodismissCadet1CLCudia.
OnFebruary13,2014,CadetlCLCudiasubmittedalettertotheOfficeoftheCommandantofCadetsrequestingfor
reinstatementbythePMAofhisstatusasacadet.34
Fourdayspassed,AnnaveeP.Cudia(Annavee),thesisterofCadet1CLCudia,postedhisplightinherFacebook
account.Thedayafter,theSpousesCudiagavealettertoMajorGeneralOscarLopez(Maj.Gen.Lopez),thenew
PMA Superintendent, asking to recognize the 81 voting of the HC.35 Copies of which were furnished to the AFP
ChiefofStaffandotherconcernedmilitaryofficials.Subsequently,Maj.Gen.LopezwasdirectedtoreviewCadet
lCLCudia'scase.Thelatter,inturn,referredthemattertotheCadetReviewandAppealsBoard(CRAB).
OnFebruary19,2014,CadetlCLCudiamadehispersonalappeallettertoMaj.Gen.Lopez.Onevendate,theAFP
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

5/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

ChiefofStafforderedareinvestigationfollowingtheviralFacebookpostofAnnaveedemandingtheinterventionof
themilitaryleadership.
Petitionersclaimthat,onFebruary21,2014,SpecialOrderNo.1wasissueddirectingallPMAcadetstoostracize
Cadet1CLCudiabynottalkingtohimandbyseparatinghimfromallactivities/functionsofthecadets.Itissaidthat
anyviolationshallbea"Class1"offenseentailing45demerits,90hourstouring,and90hoursconfinement.Cadet
1CLCudiawasnotgivenacopyoftheorderandlearnedaboutitonlyfromthemedia.36Accordingtoanalleged
news report, PMA Spokesperson Major Agnes Lynette Flores (Maj. Flores) confirmed the HC order to ostracize
Cadet 1 CL Cudia. Among his offenses were: breach of confidentiality by putting documents in the social media,
violationofthePMAHonorCode,lackofinitiativetoresign,andsmearingthenameofthePMA.37
On February 24, 2014, Cadet 1CL Cudia requested the CRAB for additional time, until March 4, 2014, to file an
appeal on the ground that his intended witnesses are in onthejob training ( OJT).38 As additional evidence to
support his appeal, he also requested for copies of the Minutes of the HC proceedings, relevant documents
pertainingtothecase,andvideofootagesandrecordingsoftheHChearings.
Thenextday,Cadet1CLCudiaandhisfamilyengagedtheservicesofthePublicAttorney'sOffice(PAO)inBaguio
City.
TheCRABconductedareviewofthecasebasedonthefollowing:(a)letterofappealoftheSpousesCudiadated
February 18, 2014 (b) directive from the AFPGHQ to reinvestigate the case and ( c) guidance from Maj. Gen.
Lopez.
On February 26, 2014, Brigadier General Andre M. Costales, Jr. (Brig. Gen. Costales, Jr.), the CRAB Chairman,
informedCadetlCLCudiathat,pendingapprovalofthelatter'srequestforextension,theCRABwouldcontinueto
reviewthecaseandsubmititsrecommendationsbasedonwhateverevidenceandtestimoniesreceived,andthatit
couldnotfavorablyconsiderhisrequestforcopiesoftheHCminutes,relevantdocuments,andvideofootagesand
recordingsoftheHChearingssinceitwasneithertheappropriatenortheauthorizedbodytotakeactionthereon.39
Subsequently,uponverbaladvice,Cadet1CLCudiawrotealettertoMaj.Gen.Lopezreiteratinghisrequest.40
Twodaysafter,theSpousesCudiafiledalettercomplaintbeforetheCHRCordilleraAdministrativeRegion(CAR)
Office against the HC members and Maj. Gracilla for alleged violation of the human rights of Cadet lCL Cudia,
particularlyhisrightstodueprocess,education,andprivacyofcommunication.41
OnMarch4,2014,Cadet1CLCudia,throughthePAO,movedforadditionaltime,untilMarch19,2014,tofilehis
appeal and submit evidence. PAO also wrote a letter to AFP Chief of Staff General Emmanuel T. Bautista (Gen.
Bautista) seeking for immediate directive to the PMA to expeditiously and favorably act on Cadet 1CL Cudia's
requests.42
ExactlyaweekpriortothecommencementexercisesofSiklabDiwaClass,thefollowingeventstranspired:
OnMarch10,2014,AnnaveesoughttheassistanceofPAOChiefPublicAttorneyPersidaV.RuedaAcosta.43On
theotherhand,theCRABsubmittedareporttotheAFPGHQupholdingthedismissalofCadet1CLCudia.44
OnMarch11,2014,PAOreceivedaletterfromMaj.Gen.LopezstatingthedenialofCadet1CLCudia'srequests
forextensionoftimetofileanAppealMemoranduminviewoftheampletimealreadygiven,andtobefurnished
withacopyofrelevantdocumentsbecauseofconfidentialityandpresumptionofregularityoftheHCproceedings.45
Cadet1CLCudia,throughPAO,thenfiledanAppealMemorandum46beforetheCRAB.
OnMarch12,2014,SpousesCudiawrotealettertoPresidentBenignoSimeonC.AquinoIII(Pres.Aquino),whois
the CommanderinChief of the AFP, attaching thereto the Appeal Memorandum.47 On the same day, Special
OrdersNo.48wasissuedbythePMAconstitutingaFactFindingBoard/InvestigationBodycomposedoftheCRAB
members and PMA senior officers to conduct a deliberate investigation pertaining to Cadet 1CL Cudia's Appeal
Memorandum.48Thefocusoftheinquirywasnotjusttofindoutwhethertheappealhasmeritormaybeconsidered
butalsotoinvestigatepossibleinvolvementofothercadetsandmembersofthecommandrelatedtotheincident
andtoestablishspecificviolationofpolicyorregulationsthathadbeenviolatedbyothercadetsandmembersofthe
HC.49
OnMarch13,2014,theCudiafamilyandtheChiefPublicAttorneyhadadialoguewithMaj.Gen.Lopez.OnMarch
14,2014,theCHRCARcameoutwithitspreliminaryfindings,whichrecommendedthefollowing:
a.ForthePMAandtheHonorCommitteetorespectandupholdthe8Guilty1Notguiltyvote
b.ForthePMAandtheHonorCommitteetoofficiallypronounceCdtCudiaasNotGuiltyofthechargefiled
againsthimbeforetheHonorCommittee
c.ForthePMAtorestoreCadetCudia'srightsandentitlementsasafullfledgegraduatingcadetandallow
himtograduateonSunday,16March2014
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

6/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

d.ForthePMAtofullycooperatewiththeCHRintheinvestigationofCudia'sCase.50
OnMarch15,2014,Cadet1CLCudiaandhisfamilyhadameetingwithPres.AquinoandDepartmentofNational
Defense (DND) Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin. The President recommended that they put in writing their appeal,
requests,andotherconcerns.Accordingtorespondents,thepartiesagreedthatCadet1CLCudiawouldnotjoin
thegraduationbutitwaswithoutprejudicetotheresultoftheappeal,whichwaselevatedtotheAFPChiefofStaff.
The President then tasked Gen. Bautista to handle the reinvestigation of the case, with Maj. Gen. Oscar Lopez
supervisingthegroupconductingthereview.
Four days after Siklab Diwa Class' graduation day, petitioner Renato S. Cudia received a letter dated March 11,
2014fromtheOfficeoftheAFPAdjutantGeneralandsignedbyBrig.Gen.RonaldN.AlbanofortheAFPChiefof
Staff,affirmingtheCRAB'sdenialofCadet1CLCudia'sappeal.Itheld:
Afterreview,TheJudgeAdvocateGeneral,APPfindsthattheactionofthePMACRABindenyingthe
appealforreinvestigationislegallyinorder.Therewasenoughevidencetosustainthefindingofguilt
andtheproprietary(sic)ofthepunishmentimposed.Also,yoursonwasaffordedsufficienttimetofile
hisappealfromthedatehewasinformedofthefinalverdictonJanuary21,2014,whenthedecisionof
theHonorCommitteewasreadtohiminperson,untilthetimethePMACRABconducteditsreviewon
the case. Moreover, the continued stay of your son at the Academy was voluntary. As such, he
remained subject to the Academy's policy regarding visitation. Further, there was no violation of his
right to due process considering that the procedure undertaken by the Honor Committee and PMA
CRABwasconsistentwithexistingpolicy.Thus,thepreviousfindingandrecommendationoftheHonor
Committeefindingyourson,subjectCadetguiltyof"Lying"andrecommendinghisseparationfromthe
Academyissustained.
Inviewoftheforegoing,thisHeadquartersresolvedtodenyyourappealforlackofmerit.51Thereafter,
the FactFinding Board/Investigating Body issued its Final Investigation Report on March 23, 2014
denyingCadet1CLCudia'sappeal.52Subsequently,onApril28,2014,thespecialinvestigationboard
tasked to probe the case submitted its final report to the President.53 Pursuant to the administrative
appeals process, the DND issued a Memorandum dated May 23, 2014, directing the Office of AFP
Chief of Staff to submit the complete records of the case for purposes of DND review and
recommendationfordispositionbythePresident.54
Meanwhile,onMay22,2014,theCHRCARissueditsResolutionwithrespecttoCHRCARCaseNo.20140029,
concludingandrecommendingasfollows:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Commission on Human RightsCAR Office finds
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS against the officers and members of the
PMA Honor Committee and .. certain PMA officials, specifically for violations of the rights of CADET
ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA to dignity, due process, education, privacy/privacy of communication, and
goodlife.
INVIEWOFTHEFOREGOING,theCHRCAROfficeRESOLVEDtoindorsetocompetentauthorities
fortheirimmediateappropriateactiononthefollowingrecommendations:
1. The Philippine Military Academy must set aside the "9Guilty, 0Not Guilty" verdict against
Cadet Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia, for being null and void to uphold and respect the "8Guilty, 1Not
Guilty" voting result and make an official pronouncement of NOT GUILTY in favor of Cadet
Cudia
2.ThePMA,theAFPChiefofStaff,andthePresidentinwhosehandsresttheendsofjustice
andfateofCadetCudia,to:
2.1 officially proclaim Cadet Cudia a graduate and alumnus of the Philippine Military
Academy
2.2 issue to Cadet Cudia the corresponding Diploma for the degree of Bachelors of
Scienceand
2.3IssuetoCadetCudiathecorrespondingofficialtranscript'ofhisacademicrecordsfor
hisBSdegree,withoutconditionsthereinastohisstatusasaPMAcadet.
3. The Public Attorneys' Office to provide legal services to Cadet Cudia in pursuing
administrative,criminalandcivilsuitsagainsttheofficersandmembersoftheHonorCommittee
named hereunder, for violation of the Honor Code and System and the Procedure in Formal
Investigation, dishonesty, violation of the secrecy of the ballot, tampering the true result of the
voting, perjury, intentional omission in the Minutes of substantive part of the formal trial
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

7/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

proceedingswhichareprejudicialtotheinterestofjusticeandCadetCudia'sfundamentalrights
to dignity, nondiscrimination and due process, which led to the infringement of his right to
educationandeventransgressinghisrighttoagoodlife.
3.1CdtlCLMIKEANTHONYMOGUL,now2ndLt.oftheAFP
3.2CdtlCLRHONAK.SALVACION,now2ndLt.oftheAFP
3.3Cdt2CLARWIC.MARTINEZ
3.4Cdt2CLRENATOA.CARINO,JR.
3.5Cdt2CLNIKOANGELOC.TARAYAO
3.6CdtlCLJEANELYNP.CABRIDO,now2ndLt.oftheAFP
3.7CdtlCLKIMADRIANR.MARTAL,now2ndLt.oftheAFP
3.8CdtlCLJAIRUS0.FANTIN,now2ndLt.oftheAFP
3.9CdtlCLBRYANSONNYS.ARLEGUI,now2ndLt.oftheAFP
3.10CdtlCLDALTONJOHNG.LAGURA,now2ndLt.oftheAFP
3.11Cdt1CLBIANCHIHEIMERL.EDRA,now2ndLt.oftheAFP
3.12Cdt4CLJENNIFERA.CUARTERON(recorder)
3.13Cdt3CLLEONCIONICOA.DEJESUSII(record)
4. The Office of the AFP Chief of Staff and the PMA competent authorities should investigate
and file appropriate charges against Maj. VLADIMIR P. GRACILLA, for violation of the right to
privacyofCadetCudiaand/orfailure,asintelligenceofficer,toensuretheprotectionoftheright
toprivacyofCudiawhowasthenbilletedatthePMAHoldingCenter
5.TheOfficeoftheAFPChiefofStaffandPMAcompetentauthoritiesshouldinvestigateMaj.
DENNIS ROMMEL HINDANG for his failure and ineptness to exercise his responsibility as a
competent Tactical Officer and a good father of his cadets, in this case, to Cadet Cudia for
failuretorespectexhaustionofadministrativeremedies
6.TheSecretaryofNationalDefense,theChiefofStaffoftheArmedForcesofthePhilppines,
the PMA Superintendent, to immediately cause the comprehensive review of all rules of
procedures, regulations, policies, including the socalled practices in the implementation of the
Honor Code and, thereafter, adopt new policies, rules of procedures and relevant regulations
whicharehumanrightsbasedandconsistentwiththeConstitutionandotherapplicablelaws
7.TheCongressofthePhilippinestoconsidertheenactmentofalawdefiningandpenalizing
ostracism and discrimination, which is apparently being practiced in the PMA, as a criminal
offenseinthisjurisdiction
8.HisExcellencyThePresidentofthePhilippinestocertifyaspriority,thepassageofananti
ostracismand/orantidiscriminationlawand
9.Finally,fortheAFPChiefofStaffandthePMAauthoritiestoensurerespectandprotectionof
the rights of those who testified for the cause of justice and truth as well as human rights of
CadetCudia.
RESOLVED FURTHER, to monitor the actions by the competent authorities on the foregoing CHR
recommendations.
Letcopyofthisresolutionbeservedbypersonalserviceorbysubstitutedservicetothecomplainants
(thespousesRenatoandFilipinaCudiaandAldrinJeffP.Cudia),andalltherespondents.Also,tothe
PMA Superintendent, the AFP Chief of Staff, the Secretary of National Defense, His Excellency The
PresidentofthePhilippines,ThePublicAttorneys'Office.
SORESOLVED.55
OnJune11,2014,theOfficeofthePresidentsustainedthefindingsoftheAFPChiefofStaffandtheCRAB.The
letter,whichwasaddressedtotheSpousesCudiaandsignedbyExecutiveSecretaryPaquitoN.Ochoa,Jr.,stated
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

8/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

inwhole:
ThisreferstoyourletterstothePresidentdated12March2014and26March2014appealingfora
reconsiderationofthedecisionofthePhilippineMilitaryAcademy(PMA)HonorCommitteeonthecase
ofyourson,Cadet1CLAldrinJeffCudia.
AftercarefullystudyingtherecordsofthecaseofCadetCudia,thedecisionoftheChiefofStaffofthe
Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), and the Honor Code System of the AFP Cadet Corps, this
Office has found no substantial basis to disturb the findings of the AFP and the PMA Cadet Review
AppealsBoard(CRAB).Thereisnocompetentevidencetosupporttheclaimthatthedecisionofthe
HonorCommitteememberswasinitiallyat8"Guilty"votesand1"NotGuilty"vote.Theloneaffidavitof
an officer, based on his purported conversation with one Honor Committee member, lacks personal
knowledgeonthedeliberationsofthesaidCommitteeandishearsayatbest.
Similarly,theinitialrecommendationsoftheCommissiononHumanRightscannotbeadoptedasbasis
thatCadetCudia'sdueprocessrightswereviolated.Apartfrombeingexplicitlypreliminaryinnature,
such recommendations are anchored on a finding that there was an 81 vote which, as discussed
above,isnotsupportedbycompetentevidence.
IntheevaluationofCadetCudia'scase,thisOfficehasbeenguidedbythepreceptthatmilitarylawis
regarded to be in a class of its own, "applicable only to military personnel because the military
constitutes an armed organization requiring a system of discipline separate from that of civilians"
(Gonzalesv.Abaya,G.R.No.164007,10August2005citingCalleyv.Callaway,519F.2d184[1975]
andOrloffv.Willoughby,345US83[1953]).Thus,thisOfficeregardedthefindingsoftheAFPChief,
particularlyhisconclusionthattherewasnothingirregularintheproceedingsthatensued,ascarrying
greatweight.
Accordingly,pleasebeinformedthatthePresidenthassustainedthefindingsoftheAFPChiefandthe
PMACRAB.56
TheIssues
Topetitioners,theissuesforresolutionare:
I.
WHETHERTHEPHILIPPINEMILITARYACADEMY,THEHONORCOMMITTEEANDTHECADETREVIEWAND
APPEALS BOARD COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DISMISSING CADET FIRST CLASS
ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA FROM THE ACADEMY IN UTTER DISREGARD OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
CONSIDERINGTHAT:
A.Despiterepeatedrequestsforrelevantdocumentsregardinghiscase,CadetFirstClassAldrinJeffCudia
wasdeprivedofhisrighttohaveaccesstoevidencewhichwouldhaveprovenhisdefense,wouldhavetotally
belied the charge against him, and more importantly, would have shown the irregularity in the Honor
Committee'shearingandrenditionofdecision
B. Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia was vaguely informed of the decisions arrived at by the Honor
Committee,theCadetReviewandAppealsBoardandthePhilippineMilitaryAcademy
C. The Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and Appeals Board and the Philippine Military Academy have
affordedCadetFirstClassAldrinJeffCudianothingbutashamtrial
D.TheHonorCommittee,theCadetReviewandAppealsBoardandthePhilippineMilitaryAcademyviolated
theirownrulesandprinciplesasembodiedintheHonorCode
E. The Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and Appeals Board and the Philippine Military Academy, in
decidingCadetFirstClassAldrinJeffCudia'scase,grosslyandinbadfaith,misappliedtheHonorCodesoas
to defy the 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the unquestionable fact that the former should yield to the
latter.
II
WHETHERTHEPHILIPPINEMILITARYACADEMY,THEHONORCOMMITTEEANDTHECADETREVIEWAND
APPEALS BOARD COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT CADET FIRST CLASS
ALDRINJEFFP.CUDIALIED,THEREBYVIOLATINGTHEHONORCODE
III
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

9/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

WHETHER THE RESULT OF THE FACTFINDING INVESTIGATION INDEPENDENTLY CONDUCTED BY THE

COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IS OF SUCH GREAT WEIGHT AND PERSUASIVE NATURE THAT THIS
HONORABLECOURTMAYHONOR,UPHOLDANDRESPECT57
Ontheotherhand,insupportoftheirprayertodismissthepetition,respondentspresentedtheissuesbelow:
PROCEDURALGROUNDS
I.
THE MANDAMUS PETITION PRAYING THAT CADET CUDIA BE INCLUDED IN THE LIST OF
GRADUATES OF SIKLAB DIWA CLASS OF 2014 AND BE ALLOWED TO TAKE PART IN THE
COMMENCEMENTEXERCISESHASALREADYBEENRENDEREDMOOT.
II.
THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PETITIONS ARE ACTUALLY FACTUAL WHICH ARE BEYOND THE
SCOPEOFAPETITIONFORCERTIORARI,PROHIBITIONANDMANDAMUS.
III.
MANDAMUS DOES NOT LIE TO COMPEL RESPONDENTS TO GRANT THE RELIEFS PRAYED
FOR.IV.ITISPREMATURETOINVOKEJUDICIALREDRESSPENDINGTHEDECISIONOFTHE
PRESIDENTONCADETCUDIA'SAPPEAL.
V.
WITH UTMOST DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT MUST EXERCISE CAREFUL
RESTRAINT AND REFRAIN FROM UNDULY OR PREMATURELY INTERFERING WITH
LEGITIMATEMILITARYMATTERS.
SUBSTANTIVEGROUNDS
VI.
CADETCUDIAHASNECESSARILYANDVOLUNTARILYRELINQUISHEDCERTAINCIVIL
LIBERTIESBYVIRTUEOFHISENTRYINTOTHEPMA.
VII.
THE PMA ENJOYS THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM WHICH AUTHORIZES IT TO IMPOSE
DISCIPLINARYMEASURESANDPUNISHMENTASITDEEMSFITANDCONSISTENTWITHTHE
PECULIARNEEDSOFTHEACADEMY.
VIII.
CADETCUDIAWASPROPERLYAFFORDEDPROCEDURALDUEPROCESS.
ThePMAhasregulatoryauthoritytoadministrativelyterminatecadetsdespitetheabsenceofstatutoryauthority.
ViolationoftheHonorCodewarrantstheadministrativedismissalofaguiltycadet.
CadetCudiaviolatedthefirsttenetoftheHonorCodebyprovidinguntruthfulstatementsintheexplanationforhis
tardiness.
ThehigherauthoritiesofthePMAdidnotblindlyadoptthefindingsoftheHonorCommittee.
TheproceduralsafeguardsinastudentdisciplinarycasewereproperlyaccordedtoCadetCudia.
ThesubtleevolutioninthevotingprocessoftheHonorCommittee,byincorporatingexecutivesession/chambering,
wasadoptedtofurtherstrengthenthevotingprocedureoftheHonorCommittee.CadetLaguravoluntarilychanged
hisvotewithoutanypressurefromtheothervotingmembersoftheHonorCommittee.
OstracismisnotasanctionedpracticeofthePMA.
The findings of the Commission on Human Rights are not binding on the Honorable Court, and are, at best,
recommendatory.
CadetCudiawasnoteffectivelydeprivedofhisfuturewhenhewasdismissedfromthePMA.58
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

10/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

TheRulingoftheCourt
PROCEDURALGROUNDS
Proprietyofapetitionformandamus
RespondentsarguethatthemandamusaspectofthepetitionprayingthatCadet1CLCudiabeincludedinthelist
of graduating cadets and for him to take part in the commencement exercises was already rendered moot and
academicwhenthegraduationceremoniesofthePMASiklabDiwaClasstookplaceonMarch16,2014.Also,a
petitionformandamusisimpropersinceitdoesnotlietocompeltheperformanceofadiscretionaryduty.Invoking
Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology,59 respondents assert that a mandamus
petition could not be availed of to compel an academic institution to allow a student to continue studying therein
becauseitismerelyaprivilegeandnotaright.Inthiscase,thereisaclearfailureonpetitioners'parttoestablish
thatthePMAhasthe,ministerialdutytoincludeCadet1CLCudiainthelist,muchlessawardhimwithacademic
honorsandcommissionhimtothePhilippineNavy.SimilartothecaseofUniversityofSanAgustin,Inc.v.Courtof
Appeals,60itissubmittedthatthePMAmayrightfullyexerciseitsdiscretionarypoweronwhomaybeadmittedto
studypursuanttoitsacademicfreedom.
In response, petitioners contend that while the plea to allow Cadet 1 CL Cudia to participate in the PMA 2014
commencementexercisescouldnolongerbehad,theCourtmaystillgranttheotherreliefsprayedfor.Theyadd
thatGarciaenunciatedthatarespondentcanbeorderedtoactinaparticularmannerwhenthereisaviolationofa
constitutional right, and that the certiorari aspect of the petition must still be considered because it is within the
provinceoftheCourttodeterminewhetherabranchofthegovernmentoranyofitsofficialshasactedwithoutorin
excessofjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessthereof.
Weagreethatapetitionformandamusisimproper.
UnderSection3,Rule65oftheRulesofCivilProcedure,apetitionformandamusmaybefiledwhenanytribunal,
corporation,board,officer,orpersonunlawfullyneglectstheperformanceofanactwhichthelawspecificallyenjoins
asadutyresultingfromanoffice,trust,orstation.Itmayalsobefiledwhenanytribunal,corporation,board,officer,
orpersonunlawfullyexcludesanotherfromtheuseandenjoymentofarightorofficetowhichsuchotherisentitled.
Formandamustolie,theactsoughttobeenjoinedmustbeaministerialactorduty.Anactisministerialiftheact
shouldbeperformed"[under]agivenstateoffacts,inaprescribedmanner,inobediencetothemandateofalegal
authority, without regard to or the exercise of [the tribunal or corporation's] own judgment upon the propriety or
improprietyoftheactdone."Thetribunal,corporation,board,officer,orpersonmusthavenochoicebuttoperform
the act specifically enjoined by law. This is opposed to a discretionary act whereby the officer has the choice to
decidehoworwhentoperformtheduty.61
Inthiscase,petitionersprayfor,amongothers:Also,afterduenoticeandhearing,itisprayedoftheCourttoissue
aWritofMandamusto:
1.directthePMAtoincludeCadetCudiainthelistofgraduatesofSiklabDiwaClassof2014ofthePMA,
includinginclusionintheyearbook
2.directthePMAtoallowCadetCudiatotakepartinthecommencementexercisesifhecompletedallthe
requirementsforhisbaccalaureatedegree
3.directthePMAtoawarduntoCadetCudiatheacademichonorshedeserves,andthecommissionasa
newPhilippineNavyensign
4. direct the Honor Committee to submit to the CRAB of the PMA all its records of the proceedings taken
againstCadetCudia,includingthevideofootageandaudiorecordingsofthedeliberationsandvoting,forthe
purposeofallowingtheCRABtoconductintelligentreviewofthecaseofCadetCudia
5. direct the PMA's CRAB to conduct a review de nova of all the records without requiring Cadet Cudia to
submitnewevidenceifitwasphysicallyimpossibletodoso
6. direct the PMA's CRAB to take into account the certification signed by Dr. Costales, the new evidence
consisting of the affidavit of a military officer declaring under oath that the cadet who voted "not guilty"
revealedtothisofficerthatthiscadetwascoercedintochanginghisvote,andothernewevidenceifthereis
any
7.directthePMA'sCRABtogiveCadetCudiatherighttoacounselwhoisallowedtoparticipateactivelyin
the proceedings as well as in the crossexaminations during the exercise of the right to confront witnesses
againsthimand
8. direct the Honor Committee in case of remand of the case by the CRAB to allow Cadet Cudia a
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

11/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362
62

representationofacounsel.

Similarly,petitionerintervenorseeksforthefollowingreliefs:
A.xxx
B.aWritofMandamusbeissuedcommanding:
a.)ThePMA,HonorCommittee,andCRABtorespectandupholdthe8Guilty1NotGuiltyvote
b.) The PMA, Honor Committee, and CRAB to officially pronounce Cadet Cudia as Not Guilty of the
chargefiledagainsthimbeforetheHonorCommittee
c.) The PMA to restore Cadet Cudia's rights and entitlements as a fullfledged graduating cadet,
includinghisdiplomaandawards.63
AnentthepleatodirectthePMAtoincludeCadet1CLCudiainthelistofgraduatesofSiklabDiwaClassof2014
andtoallowhimtotakepartinthecommencementexercises,thesamewasrenderedmootandacademicwhen
the graduation ceremonies pushed through on March 16, 2014 without including Cadet 1 CL Cudia in the roll of
graduates.
WithrespecttotheprayerdirectingthePMAtorestoreCadet1CLCudia'srightsandentitlementsasafullfledged
graduating cadet, including his diploma, awards, and commission as a new Philippine Navy ensign, the same
cannotbegrantedinapetitionformandamusonthebasisofacademicfreedom,whichWeshalldiscussinmore
detailbelow.Sufficeittosayatthispointthatthesemattersarewithintheambitoforencompassedbytherightof
academic freedom therefore, beyond the province of the Court to decide.64 The powers to confer degrees at the
PMA, grant awards, and commission officers in the military service are discretionary acts on the part of the
PresidentastheAFPCommanderinChief.BorrowingthewordsofGarcia:
Therearestandardsthatmustbemet.Therearepoliciestobepursued.Discretionappearstobeoftheessence.In
terms of Hohfeld's terminology, what a student in the position of petitioner possesses is a privilege rather than a
right. She [in this case, Cadet 1 CL Cudia] cannot therefore satisfy the prime and indispensable requisite of a
mandamusproceeding.65
Certainly, mandamus is never issued in doubtful cases. It cannot be availed against an official or government
agencywhosedutyrequirestheexerciseofdiscretionorjudgment.66Forawrittoissue,petitionersshouldhavea
clear legal right to the thing demanded, and there should be an imperative duty on the part of respondents to
performtheactsoughttobemandated.67
Thesamereasonscanbesaidasregardstheotherreliefsbeingsoughtbypetitioners,whichpertaintotheHCand
theCRABproceedings.Intheabsenceofaclearandunmistakableprovisionofalaw,amandamuspetitiondoes
notlietorequireanyonetoaspecificcourseofconductortocontrolorreviewtheexerciseofdiscretionitwillnot
issue to compel an official to do anything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do or give to the
applicantanythingtowhichheisnotentitledbylaw.68
Theforegoingnotwithstanding,theresolutionofthecasemustproceedsince,asarguedbypetitioners,theCourtis
empoweredtosettleviapetitionforcertiorariwhetherthereisgraveabuseofdiscretiononthepartofrespondents
indismissingCadet1CLCudiafromthePMA.
Factualnatureoftheissues
Accordingtorespondents,thepetitionraisesissuesthatactuallyrequiretheCourttomakefindingsoffactbecause
it sets forth several factual disputes which include, among others: the tardiness of Cadet 1 CL Cudia in , his
ENG412classandhisexplanationthereto,thecircumstancesthattranspiredintheinvestigationofhisHonorCode
violation,theproceedingsbeforetheHC,andtheallegationthatCadet1CLLagurawasforcedtochangehisvote
duringtheexecutivesession/"chambering."
In opposition, petitioners claim that the instant controversy presents legal issues. Rather than determining which
between the two conflicting versions of the parties is true, the case allegedly centers on the application,
appreciation,andinterpretationofaperson'srightstodueprocess,toeducation,andtopropertytheinterpretation
of the PMA Honor Code and Honor System and the conclusion on whether Cadet 1 CL Cudia's explanation
constituteslying.Eveniftheinstantcaseinvolvesquestionsoffact,petitionersstillholdthattheCourtisempowered
tosettlemixedquestionsoffactandlaw.Petitionersarecorrect.
There is a question of law when the issue does not call for an examination of the probative value of evidence
presented,thetruthorfalsehoodoffactsbeingadmittedandthedoubtconcernsthecorrectapplicationoflawand
jurisprudenceonthematter.Ontheotherhand,thereisaquestionoffactwhenthedoubtorcontroversyarisesas
to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. When there is no dispute as to fact, the question of whether or not the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

12/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

conclusion drawn therefrom is correct is a question of law.69 The petition does not exclusively present factual
mattersfortheCourttodecide.Aspointedout,theallencompassingissueofmoreimportanceisthedetermination
ofwhetheraPMAcadethasrightstodueprocess,toeducation,andtopropertyinthecontextoftheHonorCode
andtheHonorSystem,and,ifintheaffirmative,theextentorlimitthereof.Notably,evenrespondentsthemselves
raise substantive grounds that We have to resolve. In support of their contention that the Court must exercise
carefulrestraintandshouldrefrainfromundulyorprematurelyinterferinginlegitimatemilitarymatters,theyargue
thatCadet1CLCudiahasnecessarilyandvoluntarilyrelinquishedcertaincivillibertiesbyvirtueofhisentryintothe
PMA, and that the Academy enjoys academic freedom authorizing the imposition of disciplinary measures and
punishment as it deems fit and consistent with the peculiar needs of the PMA. These issues, aside from being
purely legal being purely legal questions, are of first impression hence, the Court must not hesitate to make a
categoricalruling.
Exhaustionofadministrativeremedies
RespondentsassertthattheCourtmustdeclinejurisdictionoverthepetitionpendingPresidentAquinosresolution
ofCadet1CLCudia'appeal.Theysaythatthereisanobviousnonexhaustionofthefulladministrativeprocess.
While Cadet 1 CL Cudia underwent the review procedures of his guilty verdict at the Academy level the
determinationbytheSJAofwhethertheHCactedaccordingtotheestablishedproceduresoftheHonorSystem,
the assessment by the Commandant of Cadets of the procedural and legal correctness of the guilty verdict, the
evaluationofthePMASuperintendenttowarranttheadministrativeseparationoftheguiltycadet,andtheappellate
review proceedings before the CRAB he still appealed to the President, who has the utmost latitude in making
decisions affecting the military. It is contended that the President's power over the persons and actions of the
members of the armed forces is recognized in B/Gen. (Ret.) Gudani v. Lt./Gen. Senga70 and in Section 3171 of
Commonwealth Act (CA.) No. 1 (also known as "The National Defense Act''). As such, the President could still
overturnthedecisionofthePMA.Inrespondents'view,thefilingofthispetitionwhilethecaseispendingresolution
ofthePresidentisanirresponsibledefiance,ifnotapersonalaffront.Forthem,comitydictatesthatcourtsofjustice
shouldshyawayfromadisputeuntilthesystemofadministrativeredresshasbeencompleted.
Fromtheunfoldingofevents,petitioners,however,considerthatPresidentAquinoeffectivelydeniedtheappealof
Cadet 1 CL Cudia. They claim that his family exerted insurmountable efforts to seek reconsideration of the HC
recommendationfromtheAPPofficialsandthePresident,butwasinvain.Thecircumstancespriorto,during,and
afterthePMA2014graduationrites,whichwasattendedbyPresidentAquinoafterhetalkedtoCadetlCLCudia's
familythenightbefore,foreclosethepossibilitythatthechallengedfindingswouldstillbeoverturned.Inanycase,
petitioners insist that the rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is not absolute based on the Corsiga v.
Defensor72andVercelesv.BLRDOLE73rulings.
Weruleforpetitioners.
Ingeneral,nooneisentitledtojudicialreliefforasupposedorthreatenedinjuryuntiltheprescribedadministrative
remedy has been exhausted. The rationale behind the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is that
"courts,forreasonsoflaw,comity,andconvenience,shouldnotentertainsuitsunlesstheavailableadministrative
remedies have first been resorted to and the proper authorities, who are competent to act upon the matter
complainedof,havebeengiventheappropriateopportunitytoactandcorrecttheirallegederrors,ifany,committed
intheadministrativeforum."74 In the U.S. case of Ringgold v. United States,75whichwascitedbyrespondents,it
wasspecificallyheldthatinatypicalcaseinvolvingadecisionbymilitaryauthorities,theplaintiffmustexhausthis
remedieswithinthemilitarybeforeappealingtothecourt,thedoctrinebeingdesignedbothtopreservethebalance
betweenmilitaryandcivilianauthoritiesandtoconservejudicialresources.
Nonetheless,thereareexceptionstotherule.Inthisjurisdiction,apartymaydirectlyresorttojudicialremediesif
anyofthefollowingispresent:
1.whenthereisaviolationofdueprocess
2.whentheissueinvolvedispurelyalegalquestion
3.whentheadministrativeactionispatentlyillegalamountingtolackorexcessofjurisdiction
4.whenthereisestoppelonthepartoftheadministrativeagencyconcerned
5.whenthereisirreparableinjury
6. when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter ego of the President bear the
impliedandassumedapprovalofthelatter
7.whentorequireexhaustionofadministrativeremedieswouldbeunreasonable
8.whenitwouldamounttoanullificationofaclaim
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

13/14

1/8/2016

G.R.No.211362

9.whenthesubjectmatterisaprivatelandinlandcaseproceedings
10.whentheruledoesnotprovideaplain,speedyandadequateremedyand
11.whentherearecircumstancesindicatingtheurgencyofjudicialintervention.76
Petitioners essentially raise the lack of due process in the dismissal of Cadet 1 CL Cudia from the PMA. Thus, it
maybeagroundtogiveduecoursetothepetitiondespitethenonexhaustionofadministrativeremedies.Yetmore
significantisthefactthatduringthependencyofthiscase,particularlyonJune11,2014,theOfficeofthePresident
finallyissueditsruling,whichsustainedthefindingsoftheAFPChiefandtheCRAB.Hence,theoccurrenceofthis
superveningeventbarsanyobjectiontothepetitionbasedonfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremedies.
Court'sinterferencewithinmilitaryaffairs
RespondentscitetheU.S.casesofBoisv.Marsh77andSchlesingerv.Councilman78tosupporttheircontentionthat
judicialinterventionwouldposesubstantialthreattomilitarydisciplineandthatthereshouldbeadeferentialreview
ofmilitarystatutesandregulationssincepoliticalbrancheshaveparticularexpertiseandcompetenceinassessing
militaryneeds.Likewise,inOrloffv.Willoughby79andParkerv.Levy,80itwasallegedlyopinedbytheU.S.Sup

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/gr_211362_2015.html

14/14