Mandaue City College v. Commission on Higher Education
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Mandaue City College (MCC) was established by Mandaue City Ordinance No. 10-2005-324A, with Dr. Paulus Mariae L. Cañete appointed as College Administrator. Following allegations of irregularities, the MCC Board of Trustees directed Dr. Cañete to cease and desist, appointing Dr. Susana Cabahug as Caretaker. Despite this, Dr. Cañete continued to operate MCC (MCC-Cañete) at one campus, while MCC under Dr. Cabahug (MCC-Cabahug) operated at another. After an amendment to the MCC Ordinance, CHED investigated and found both schools lacked the legal mandate to offer higher education programs, issuing cease and desist orders. MCC-Cabahug complied and was granted authority for some programs, but MCC-Cañete failed to comply, leading CHED to issue a Closure Order on December 3, 2010. The Mandaue City Council passed a resolution to prevent unauthorized use of the MCC name, and CHED issued a Notice to the Public on July 4, 2011, declaring MCC-Cañete without legal personality and its degrees spurious. Procedural History: MCC-Cañete filed a petition before the RTC seeking the nullification of the Closure Order and Notice to the Public, asserting CHED lacked authority, accreditation was voluntary, and MCC had automatic government recognition. CHED countered that RA 7722 vested jurisdiction in it and its power to close schools was not merely recommendatory. The RTC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and subsequently a writ of preliminary injunction, allowing MCC-Cañete graduates to take licensure examinations. Ultimately, the RTC dismissed MCC-Cañete's petition for lack of merit, affirming CHED's authority and concluding that MCC-Cañete was not the institution established by the ordinance. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, characterizing MCC-Cañete as a "rogue school" operating without the MCC Board's authority and lacking juridical personality, and reiterating that CHED's power to close schools was not recommendatory. The CA denied MCC-Cañete's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: MCC-Cañete argues that Dr. Cañete was appointed MCC President, not College Administrator, and that the Revised MCC Ordinance ratified his actions, rendering Dr. Cabahug's appointment moot. It questions CHED's authority to issue the Closure Order, citing BP 232 and claiming CHED's power under RA 7722 was recommendatory. MCC-Cañete further disputes the investigation's validity and claims a denial of due process, also arguing that Dr. Cabahug's appointment violated CHED Memorandum Order No. 32, Series of 2006. CHED maintains that its decisions deserve respect due to its expertise and that MCC-Cañete lacked juridical personality.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Commission on Higher Education's (CHED) authority to issue the school Closure Order. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the Closure Order and Notice to the Public issued by CHED against MCC-Cañete.
Ruling
The petition lacks merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the Closure Order and Notice to the Public issued by CHED against Mandaue City College-Cañete (MCC-Cañete).
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue of CHED's authority to issue the Closure Order: The Court reiterated that the creation of CHED pursuant to Republic Act No. 7722 (Higher Education Act of 1994) granted it jurisdiction over both public and private institutions of higher education. Section 8 of RA 7722 explicitly enumerates CHED's powers and functions, including monitoring and evaluating programs and institutions for the imposition of sanctions such as program termination or school closure. Article 13(e) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7722 further clarifies this power. Section 16 of RA 7722 grants CHED the necessary authority to effectively carry out its functions, which includes issuing closure orders against errant institutions. Therefore, it was well within CHED's power to issue the Closure Order against MCC-Cañete. On the second issue of upholding the Closure Order and Notice to the Public: The Court found that MCC-Cañete failed to establish its legitimacy. The Mandaue City Board of Trustees, the governing body of MCC, had issued resolutions directing Dr. Cañete to cease and desist from performing his functions and appointed Dr. Cabahug as Caretaker. Despite these resolutions, Dr. Cañete continued to operate MCC-Cañete. The Revised MCC Ordinance, relied upon by MCC-Cañete, did not recognize MCC-Cañete, and its Section 14 only ratified lawful acts. Acts performed by Dr. Cañete after the issuance of the cease and desist orders were not lawful. Furthermore, the appointment of Dr. Cabahug as Caretaker occurred before the proscription against appointing a Caretaker/Officer-in-Charge in the Revised MCC Ordinance took effect. The Court also noted that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) had denied Dr. Cañete's claim for salaries, finding his appointments wanting in validity. The argument that MCC-Cañete, as a government-operated school, was exempt from CHED's recognition requirements under Section 27 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 232 (Education Act of 1982) was rejected because MCC-Cañete was not the MCC created by the ordinance and lacked the mandate of the MCC Board. The local government of Mandaue City had also disowned the MCC operated under Dr. Cañete's administration. MCC-Cañete failed to present sufficient proof of compliance with CHED's requirements, unlike MCC under Dr. Cabahug's administration. Consequently, MCC-Cañete lacked juridical personality and could not sue as a real party-in-interest.
Main Doctrine
The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has the authority to issue closure orders against erring higher educational institutions, and a school operating without the necessary authority and in defiance of its governing board lacks juridical personality and cannot invoke claims of automatic recognition.