Scribd
Upload
158 views2 pages

CSC Vs SOJOR

The Supreme Court ruled that academic freedom cannot be invoked in this case involving complaints against a university president for nepotism, dishonesty, and misconduct. While academic freedom allows institutions autonomy over matters like admissions and curriculum, it does not permit violations of civil service rules. As a non-career civil servant, the university president was under the jurisdiction of both the university board and the Civil Service Commission, so complaints against him for grave offenses could be validly investigated by the Commission. The Court reinstated the Commission's resolutions ordering the investigation and suspension of the president.

Uploaded by

Macky Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
158 views2 pages

CSC Vs SOJOR

The Supreme Court ruled that academic freedom cannot be invoked in this case involving complaints against a university president for nepotism, dishonesty, and misconduct. While academic freedom allows institutions autonomy over matters like admissions and curriculum, it does not permit violations of civil service rules. As a non-career civil servant, the university president was under the jurisdiction of both the university board and the Civil Service Commission, so complaints against him for grave offenses could be validly investigated by the Commission. The Court reinstated the Commission's resolutions ordering the investigation and suspension of the president.

Uploaded by

Macky Lee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs.

SOJOR
G.R. No. 168766
May 22, 2008
REYES, R.T., J.

Digest by: URMENETSKIE

FACTS:

 Respondent Henry Sojor was the in his second term as president of the Central Visayas
Polytechnic College (CVPC) later known as Negros Oriental State University (NORSU), when it
was converted by virtue of RA 9299 to in 2004. Meanwhile, multiple complaints against him for
dishonesty, misconduct, and nepotism were filed against him by various CVPC faculty members
to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office 7 in Cebu City.
 Despite contending that the petitioner CSC had no jurisdiction over him, the CSC resolved that
they, together with CVPC’s Board of Trustees, had concurrent jurisdiction over him, because of
his classification as a non-career civil servant under the CSC’s jurisdiction and ordered that the
investigation against respondent proceed, and that respondent be suspended.
 The respondent appealed to the CA, contending that the CSC encroached on the academic
freedom of the CVPC by exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over his case when said disciplinary
jurisdiction is only exclusively exercised by the BOT of CVPC. The CA subsequently reversed the
earlier resolution of the CSC, with the CA ruling that only the BOT of the CVPC (and
subsequently, the Board of Regents of NORSU) has the power to discipline and remove school
officials. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, hence the petition.

ISSUE:

WON academic freedom can be validly invoked in this case. (NO)

RULING:

The Court held that:

Academic freedom encompasses the freedom to determine who may teach, who may be taught, how it
shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study. Following that doctrine, this Court has recognized
that institutions of higher learning have the freedom to decide for itself the best methods to achieve
their aims and objectives, free from outside coercion, except when the welfare of the general public so
requires. They have the independence to determine who to accept to study in their school and they
cannot be compelled by mandamus to enroll a student.

That principle, however, finds no application to the facts of the present case. Contrary to the matters
traditionally held to be justified to be within the bounds of academic freedom, the administrative
complaints filed against Sojor involve violations of civil service rules. He is facing charges of nepotism,
dishonesty, falsification of official documents, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service. These are classified as grave offenses under civil service rules, punishable with
suspension or even dismissal. This Court has held that the guaranteed academic freedom does not give
an institution the unbridled authority to perform acts without any statutory basis. For that reason, a
school official, who is a member of the civil service, may not be permitted to commit violations of civil
service rules under the justification that he was free to do so under the principle of academic
freedom.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The assailed Resolutions of the Civil Service Commission are REINSTATED.

You might also like