When quibbling is a form of lying: SC affirms Cudia dismissal

When quibbling is a form of lying: SC affirms Cudia dismissal By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News Posted at Feb 24 2015 02:57 PM | Updated as of Feb 24 2015 10:57 PM MANILA - The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the dismissal of Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff Cudia from the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), absolving the academy of allegations of violating Cudia's right to due process, and upholding the PMA's academic freedom. In a decision penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, the high court junked Cudia's petition which sought a reversal of the PMA's action. "Wherefore, the petition is denied. The dismissal of Cadet First Class Aldrin Jeff P. Cudia from the Military Academy is hereby affirmed. No costs," the decision read. The high court also agreed with the PMA's findings that Cudia lied about the reason for his tardiness in one of his classes, which served as basis for Cudia's dismissal. Cudia, for his part, justified his tardiness by saying that he was dismissed late in a previous class. "As a factual matter, the Court also noted that petitioner committed a violation of the Honor Code by 'quibbling' which constitutes 'lying.' Citing an Honor Reference Handbook cited in a US case, the Court defined 'quibbling' as a situation where the person creates a false impression in the mind of his listener by cleverly wording what he says, omitting relevant facts, or telling a partial truth. When this is done with the intent to deceive or mislead, he is quibbling; and because it is an intentional deception, quibbling is a form of lying," the high court said. The high court noted that Cudia was "quibbling" when he used the words "dismiss" and "class" since he very well knew that "by no stretch of the imagination can four cadets constitute a 'class.'" "[P]etitioner 'cunningly chose words which led to confusion;' [the SC] also noted that 'it is not just a matter of semantics and a product of plain and simple inaccuracy... (as) (t)here is manipulation of facts and presentation of untruthful explanation constitutive of an Honor Code violation. The Court also noted that the penalty of dismissal for violation of the Honor Code is appropriate and not disproportionate under the circumstances," the high court said. In ruling that the PMA did not violate Cudia's right to due process, the SC said "minimum standards of fairness were met" in investigating and dismissing Cudia. "[T]he Court stated that 'in order to be proper and immune from constitutional infirmity, a cadet who is sought to be dismissed or separated from the academy must be afforded a hearing, be apprised of the specific charges against him, and be given an adequate opportunity to present his or defense both from the point of view of time and the use of witnesses and other evidence.' The Court noted that petitioner had been so afforded these two rights. "In affirming the action taken by the PMA, the Court noted that 'by reason of their special knowledge and expertise gained from the handling of specific matters falling under their respective jurisdictions, the factual findings of administrative tribunals are ordinarily accorded respect if not finality by the Court, unless such findings are not supported by evidence or vitiated by fraud, imposition or conclusion; where the procedure which led to the findings is irregular; when palpable errors are committed; or when a grave abuse of discretion, arbitriness, or capriciousness is manifest. In this case, the Court found no reason to deviate from the findings of the PMA," the high court said.