Cudia v.

Superintendent of the Philippine Military Academy

FACTS:
Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia was a member of the Siklab Diwa Class of 2014
at the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), the country's premiere military academy
located at Fort Gregorio del Pilar in Baguio City. He belonged to the "A" Company
and was the Deputy Baron of his class. he was supposed to graduate with honors as
the class salutatorian, receive the Philippine Navy Saber as the top Navy cadet
graduate, and be commissioned as an ensign of the Philippine Navy. However, his
graduation was jeopardized due to an alleged violation of the PMA Honor Code. On
November 14, 2013, Cudia was reported late for his English (ENG412) class by two
minutes. He explained that his previous class, Operations Research (OR432), ended
late, causing the delay. OR432, his 4th period class was from 1:30-3:00 PM, while
ENG412, his 5th period class was from 3:05-4:05 PM. Therefore, Professor Juanita
Berong issued a Delinquency Report (DR) against him. Cudia submitted an
explanation, stating that he went directly from OR432 class to ENG512 and OR432
class was dismissed late by the instructor, Dr. Maria Monica C. Costales causing him
to be late.

Major Rommel Dennis Hindang, the Company Tactical Officer (CTO), meted out a
penalty of 11 demerits and 13 touring hours to Cudia who requested for
reconsideration, asserting that he was not in control of the circumstances. However,
his request was denied after Major Hindang claimed that Dr. Costales denied
dismissing the class late instead she followed the protocol to dismiss the class 10-
15 minutes earlier than scheduled. Cudia sought a reconsideration of his
punishment and addressed his request for reconsideration to Major Benjamin L.
Leander and asserted that he was not in control of the circumstances on why he
was late. Major Leander asked Major Hindang to submit his reply. Major Hindang in
his reply said that based on his investigation, the 4th period class was not dismissed
late. As a result, the penalty was sustained. Major Hindang reported Cudia to the
Honor Committee for Violation of the Honor Code on the basis of lying when Cudia
states that his 4th period class ended at 3:00 that made him late in the succeeding
class. Cudia clarified the matter with Dr. Costales who later on said that when
Hindang had asked her whether she dismissed the class late, she and Hindang were
not in the same time reference. Cudia in his letter of explanation on the Honor
Report averred that his understanding of the “class” covers not just a lecture in a
typical classroom instruction but includes every transaction and communication a
teacher does with her students and in their case, some cadets were asked for
queries, and he was given instruction by which were directly related to their class.
Dr. Costales' transaction and communication with other classmates may have
already ended but his and Dr. Costales extended for a little bit.

The PMA Honor Committee found Cudia guilty of violating the Honor Code. Cudia
was placed on indefinite leave of absence without pay and allowances, pending
approval of his separation by the AFP barring him from future appointment and/or
admission as cadet, and not permitting him to qualify for any entrance requirements
to the PMA. CRAB or the Cadet Review and Appeals Board reviewed the case of
Cudia. Pending review, Special order No.1 was issued directing all PMA cadets to
ostracize Cudia which caused Cudia and his family to engage the services of the
PAO. The CRAB Chairman informed Cudia that it could not favorably consider his
request for copies of the HC minutes, relevant documents, and video footage and
recordings of the HC prior hearings since it was neither the appropriate nor the
authorized body to act thereon. Two days later, the Spouses Cudia filed a letter of
complaint before the CHR-Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) Office against the
HC members and Major Garcia for alleged violation of the human rights of Cudia.
CRAB submitted a report to the AFP General Headquarters upholding the dismissal
of Cudia. The CHRCAR came out with its preliminary findings recommending that
the PMA and the HC pronounce Cudia as not guilty of the charge filed against him
before the Honor Committee, to restore Cudia’s rights and entitlements as a full-
fledged graduating cadet and allow him to graduate. The AFP Chief of Staff affirmed
CRAB’s denial of Cudia’s appeal. AFP Headquarters resolved to deny the appeal for
lack of merit. The CHR moved to conclude and recommend that there existed
probable cause for Human Rights Violations against the officers and members of the
PMA Honor Committee and certain PMA officials for violations of the rights of Cudia
to dignity, due process, education, privacy of communication and good life. The CHR
recommended that authorities should investigate several PMA officials. This case
reached the Office of the President who sustained the findings of the AFP Chief of
Staff and the CRAB. And that the initial recommendations of the Commission on
Human Rights cannot be adopted as the basis that Cudia’s due process rights were
violated.

Issues:

1. Whether the Philippine Military Academy, the Honor Committee and the
Cadet Review and Appeals Board committed grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia from the academy in utter
disregard of his dignity, due process, education, privacy/privacy of
communication, and good life..
a. Despite repeated requests for relevant documents regarding his case,
Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia was deprived of his right to have
access to evidence which would have proven his defense, would have
totally belied the charge against him, and more importantly, would
have shown the irregularity in the Honor Committee's hearing and
rendition of decision

b. Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia was vaguely informed of the
decisions arrived at by the Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and
Appeals Board and the Philippine Military Academy

c. The Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and Appeals Board and the
Philippine Military Academy have afforded Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff
Cudia nothing but a sham trial
 d. The Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and Appeals Board and the
Philippine Military Academy violated their own rules and principles as
embodied in the Honor Code

e. The Honor Committee, the Cadet Review and Appeals Board and the
Philippine Military Academy, in deciding Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff
Cudia's case, grossly and in bad faith, misapplied the Honor Code so as
to defy the 1987 Constitution, notwithstanding the unquestionable fact
that the former should yield to the latter.

All told, petitioners are not entitled to moral and exemplary damages in accordance
with Articles 19, 2217, 2219 and 2229 of the Civil Code. The dismissal of Cadet 1 CL
Cudia from the PMA did not effectively deprive him of a future. Cliche though it may
sound, being a PMA graduate is not the "be-all and end-all" of his existence. A cadet
separated from the PMA may still continue to pursue military or civilian career
elsewhere without suffering the stigma attached to his or her dismissal. For one, as
suggested by respondents, DND-AFP Circular No. 13, dated July 15, 1991, on the
enlistment and reenlistment in the APP Regular Force, provides under Section 14 (b)
thereof that priority shall be given to, among others, the ex-PMA or PAFFFS
cadets.227 If the positions open does not appeal to his interest for being way below
the rank he could have achieved as a PMA graduate, Cadet 1 CL Cudia could still
practice other equally noble profession or calling that is best suited to his
credentials, competence, and potential. Definitely, nobody can deprive him of that
choice.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The dismissal of Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P.
Cudia from the Philippine Military Academy is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.

Due Process
In this case, the investigation of Cadet 1 CL Cudia' s Honor Code violation followed
the prescribed procedure and existing practices in the PMA. He was notified of the
Honor Report from Major Hindang. He was then given the opportunity to explain the
report against him. He was informed about his options and the entire process that
the case would undergo. The preliminary investigation immediately followed after
he replied and submitted a written explanation. Upon its completion, the
investigating team submitted a written report together with its recommendation to
the HC Chairman. The HC thereafter reviewed the findings and recommendations.
When the honor case was submitted for formal investigation, a new team was
assigned to conduct the hearing. During the formal investigation/hearing, he was
informed of the charge against him and given the right to enter his plea. He had
the chance to explain his side, confront the witnesses against him, and
present evidence in his behalf. After a thorough discussion of the HC
voting members, he was found to have violated the ' Honor Code.
Thereafter, the guilty verdict underwent the review process at the
Academy level - from the OIC of the HC, to the Staff Judge Advocate, to the
Commandant of Cadets, and to the PMA Superintendent. A separate
investigation was also conducted by the Headquarters Tactics Group.
Then, upon the directive of the AFP-GHQ to reinvestigate the case, a
review was conducted by the CRAB. Further, a Fact-Finding
Board/Investigation Body composed of the CRAB members and the PMA
senior officers was constituted to conduct a deliberate investigation of the
case. Finally, he had the opportunity to appeal to the President. Sadly for
him, all had issued unfavorable rulings.

Evidence
Basically, petitioners want the court to assume that the documents, footages, and
recordings relevant to the HC hearings are favorable to Cadet 1 CL Cudia's cause,
and, consequently, to rule that respondents' refusal to produce and have them
examined is tantamount to the denial of his right to procedural due process. They
are mistaken. In this case, petitioners have not particularly identified any
documents, witness testimony, or oral or written presentation of facts submitted at
the hearing that would support Cadet 1 CL Cudia's defense. The Court may require
that an administrative record be supplemented, but only "where there is a 'strong
showing or bad faith or improper behavior' on the part of the agency," 173 both of
which are not present here. Petitioners have not specifically indicated the nature of
the concealed evidence, if any, and the reason for withholding it. What they did was
simply supposing that Cadet 1 CL Cudia's guilty verdict would be overturned with
the production and examination of such documents, footages, and recordings. As
will be further shown in the discussions below, the requested matters, even if
denied, would not relieve Cadet 1 CL Cudia's predicament. If at all, such denial was
a harmless procedural error since he was not seriously prejudiced thereby.

Counsel
In the case before Us, while the records are bereft of evidence that Cadet 1 CL
Cudia was given the option or was able to seek legal advice prior to and/or during
the HC hearing, it is indubitable that he was assisted by a counsel, a PAO lawyer to
be exact, when the CRAB reviewed and reinvestigated the case. The requirement of
due process is already satisfied since, at the very least, the counsel aided him in the
drafting and filing of the Appeal Memorandum and even acted as an observer who
had no right to actively participate in the proceedings (such as conducting the
cross-examination). Moreover, not to be missed out are the facts that the offense
committed by Cadet 1 CL Cudia is not criminal in nature; that the hearings before
the HC and the CRAB were investigative and not adversarial; and that Cadet lCL
Cudia's excellent-academic standing puts him in the best position to look after his
own vested interest in the Academy.