Scribd
Upload
146 views2 pages

Balmores v. Mindanao State University

This document summarizes a court case involving Denmark S. Valmores, a student at MSU College of Medicine who is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Valmores requested to be excused from classes held on Saturdays due to his religious beliefs, but the school did not accommodate him. As a result, Valmores failed a class and was unable to retake the exam. The court ruled that the school was obligated to enforce the 2010 CHED Memorandum requiring schools to exempt students from academic activities that interfere with their religious obligations, and that their failure to do so in Valmores' case was correctable by mandamus. The court affirmed that educational institutions must safeguard students

Uploaded by

Marites regalia
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
146 views2 pages

Balmores v. Mindanao State University

This document summarizes a court case involving Denmark S. Valmores, a student at MSU College of Medicine who is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Valmores requested to be excused from classes held on Saturdays due to his religious beliefs, but the school did not accommodate him. As a result, Valmores failed a class and was unable to retake the exam. The court ruled that the school was obligated to enforce the 2010 CHED Memorandum requiring schools to exempt students from academic activities that interfere with their religious obligations, and that their failure to do so in Valmores' case was correctable by mandamus. The court affirmed that educational institutions must safeguard students

Uploaded by

Marites regalia
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

DENMARK S. VALMORES v. DR. CRISTINA ACHACOSO, GR No.

217453, 2017-07-19
Facts:
Petitioner Denmark S. Valmores (Valmores) is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist
Church, whose fundamental beliefs include the strict observance of the Sabbath as a sacred day.
As such, petitioner Valmores joins the faithful in worshipping and resting on Saturday, the
seventh day of the week, and refrains from non-religious undertakings from sunset of Friday to
sunset of Saturday.[6]Prior to the instant controversy, petitioner Valmores was enrolled as a first-
year student at the MSU-College of Medicine for Academic Year 2014-2015. To avoid potential
conflict between his academic schedule and his church's Saturday worship, petitioner Valmores
wrote a letter to respondent Achacoso, requesting that he be excused from attending his classes
in the event that a regular weekday session is rescheduled to a Saturday. At the same time,
petitioner Valmores expressed his willingness to make up for any missed activity or session due
to his absence. Between the months of June to August 2014, some of petitioner Valmores' classes
and examinations were moved from weekdays to Saturdays. In one instance, petitioner Valmores
was unable to take his Histo-Pathology laboratory examination held on September 13, 2015, a
Saturday. Respondent Cabildo was his professor for the said subject. Despite his request for
exemption, no accommodation was given by either of the respondents. As a result, petitioner
Valmores received a failing grade of 5 for that particular module and was considered ineligible
to retake the exam.Thereafter, several pastors and officers of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
sent a letter to respondent Achacoso, requesting for a possible audience with the members of the
MSU school board. In addition, the church, through Pastor Hanani P. Nietes, issued a
Certification dated September 15, 2014 in connection with petitioner Valmores' request for
exemption.
On September 19, 2014, petitioner Valmores again wrote a letter to respondent Achacoso
to seek reconsideration regarding his situation, reiterating his willingness to take make-up classes
or their equivalent in order to complete the requirements of his course. Hence, aggrieved by
respondents' lack of consideration, petitioner Valmores elevated the matter before the CHED. In
an Indorsement dated January 6, 2015, the CHED Regional Office, Region X, through Mr. Roy
Roque U. Agcopra, Chief Administrative Officer, referred the matter directly to the President of
MSU as well as respondent Achacoso and requested that the office be advised of the action thus
taken. In response, Dr. Macapado Abaton Muslim (Dr. Muslim), President of MSU, instructed
respondent Achacoso to enforce the 2010 CHED Memorandum.
Issues:
Whether mandamus lies to compel respondents to enforce the 2010 CHED Memorandum
in the case of petitioner Valmores.
Ruling:
The freedom of religion enjoys a preferred status among the rights conferred to each
citizen by our fundamental charter. In this case, no less than petitioner Valmores' right to
religious freedom is being threatened by respondents' failure to accommodate his case. In this
regard, when confronted with a potential infringement of fundamental rights, the Court will not
hesitate, as it now does, to overlook procedural lapses in order to fulfill its foremost duty of
satisfying the higher demands of substantial justice.
The Court is also aware of petitioner Valmores' plea for the expedient resolution of his
case, as he has yet to enroll in the MSU-College of Medicine and continue with his studies.[39]
Plainly enough, to require petitioner Valmores to hold his education in abeyance in the meantime
that he is made to comply with the rule on hierarchy of courts would be unduly burdensome. It is
a known fact that education is a time-sensitive endeavor, where premium is placed not only on
its completion, but also on the timeliness of its achievement. Inevitably, justice in this case must
take the form of a prompt and immediate disposition if complete relief is to be accorded. On
these premises, the Court finds sufficient bases to relax the foregoing procedural rules in the
broader interest of justice.The freedom of religion vis-a-vis the 2010 CHED Memorandum
At once, a plain reading of the memorandum reveals the ministerial nature of the duty
imposed upon HEIs. Its policy is crystal clear: a student's religious obligations takes precedence
over his academic responsibilities, consonant with the constitutional guarantee of free exercise
and enjoyment of religious worship. Accordingly, the CHED imposed a positive duty on all HEIs
to exempt students, as well as faculty members, from academic activities in case such activities
interfere with their religious obligations.
The Court finds that respondents were duty bound to enforce the 2010 CHED
Memorandum insofar as it requires the exemption of petitioner Valmores from academic
responsibilities that conflict with the schedule of his Saturday worship. Their failure to do so is
therefore correctible by mandamus.Every person is free to tread the far territories of their
conscience, no matter where they may lead — for the freedom to believe and act on one's own
convictions and the protection of such freedom extends to all people, from the theistic to the
godless. The State must, as a matter of duty rather than consequence, guarantee that such pursuit
remains unfettered.As representatives of the State, educational institutions are bound to
safeguard the religious freedom of their students. Thus, to such end, our schools carry the
responsibility to restrict its own academic liberties, should they collide with constitutionally
preferred rights.

You might also like