!"#$% '$($#)" *+ !,-./ ,0 122$"3# 4567 8!91 ::;<= 12.>3 5?

= 5;@@
A1!B8 L1l1lCnL8S-ALLLLLS: !ose 8. Ledesma
8LSCnuLn1-ALLLAn1: Pon. CourL of Appeals

Ledesma, Lhen, resldenL of Lhe WesL vlsayas College seeks Lhe reversal of Lhe
declslon of Lhe respondenL, CourL of Appeals, whlch afflrmed Lhe declslon of Lhe
CourL of llrsL lnsLance of llollo. Ad[udglng Lhe peLlLloner - llable for Lhe damages
under ArLlcle 27 of Lhe Clvll Code for fallure Lo graduaLe a sLudenL wlLh honors.

1he sLudenL who was supposed Lo graduaLe wlLh honors was vloleLs uelmo, a
Lreasurer of an organlzaLlon ln Lhe aforemenLloned school, SLudenL Leadershlp
Club. As Lreasurer, uelmo exLended loans from Lhe funds of Lhe organlzaLlon Lo Lhe
sLudenLs of Lhe school. 1he peLlLloner (who Lhen was Lhe presldenL of Lhe school)
clalmed LhaL Lhe sald acL was agalnsL school rules, and LhaL uelmo, who was
supposed Lo graduaLe wlLh honors was dropped from Lhe club and was lnformed
LhaL she would noL be a candldaLe for any award or clLaLlon from Lhe school.

uelmo asked for a reconslderaLlon of Lhe declslon buL as Lhe peLlLloner denled lL,
she appealed Lo Lhe Cfflce of Lhe ulrecLor of Lhe 8ureau of ubllc Schools and was
found Lo have acLed ln good falLh and ln followlng Lhe by-laws LhaL she knew was
valld, along wlLh Lhe knowledge of Lhe organlzaLlon's oLher members and offlcers,
noL knowlng LhaL Lhelr club advlser, dld noL do hls due dlllgence and have falled Lo
submlL Lhe agreed bylaws Lo Lhe school superlnLendenL LhaL caused Lhe bylaws'
lnvalldlLy. 1he lnvesLlgaLlon lead Lo Lhe approval of Lhe Cfflce of Lhe ublc School's
ulrecLor Lo allow uelmo Lo graduaLe wlLh honors.

1o lnform Lhe School resldenL of hls declslon, Lhe dlrecLor senL a Lelegram. 1wo
Lelegrams were mlsundersLood and Lhe Lhlrd was dlsmlssed and noL followed on
Lhe day of Lhe graduaLlon. 1he Lhlrd Lelegram bore Lhe lnformaLlon LhaL Lhe
ulrecLor ordered Lhe school presldenL Lo allow uelmo Lo graduaLe wlLh honors.

1he 1rlal CourL's argumenLs were:
1. Slnce Lhe SLudenL Leadershlp Club had Lhe lnducLlon of Cfflcers LhaL allowed
Lhe club Lo sponsor Lhe LducaLlon Week CelebraLlon, Lhe sLudenLs belleved
LhaL Lhelr Advlser acLed as an exLenslon of Ledesma's personallLy
2. Ledesma knew LhaL Lhe Lelegrams were means for 1he Cfflce of Lhe ulrecLor
of ubllc Schools Lo glve hlm Lhe orders Lo allow uelmo Lo graduaLe wlLh
honors. 8uL he has clalmed he dld noL flnlsh readlng Lhe Lelegram whlch
only had Lhree pages, LhaL obvlously ls a lle as he lnformed Lhe courL LhaL he
knew LhaL Lhe dlrecLlon LhaL sLaLed uelmo Lo noL be deprlved of any award
was on Lhe lasL paragraph of Lhe same. Pe wouldn'L be able Lo know Lhls
had he noL read Lhe leLLer.
3. Ledesma falled Lo lnform uelmo of Lhe declslon when ln one of Lhe
Lelegrams, he was lnsLrucLed Lo do so. 8efore Lhe graduaLlon rlLes even
were admlnlsLered.
4. Ledesma belleved uelmo dld noL deserve Lo recelve her honors (as quoLed
by Ledesma) and he lnLended Lo deprlve her of such honors even wlLh Lhe
ulrecLor's orders as he wlll be embarrassed. 1hls could noL be Lrue as he was
Lhe only one who knew uelmo's slLuaLlon and cerLalnly, hls acLs speak
eloquenLly of hls bad falLh and un[usL of mlndwarped by hls dellcaLe
senslLlvlLy for havlng been challenged by uelmo, a mere sLudenL.

1he defendanL's behavlor was found Lo be a case LhaL smacks of conLempLuous
arrogance, oppresslon and abuse of power.

1he award for damages were as follows:

20,000 hp and 10,000 hp Lo vloleLa uelmo and her parenLs, respecLlvely
for moral damages
3,000 hp for nomlnal damages
10,000 hp for exemplary damages
2,000 hp for aLLorney's fees

1he CourL of Appeals afflrmed Lhe declslon. 1hus, Lhe peLlLlon Lo Lhe SC
C88DEF8 WheLher or noL Lhe respondenL CourL of Appeals erred ln afflrmlng Lhe Lrlal courL's
flndlng LhaL Lhe peLlLloner ls llable for damages under ArLlcle 27 of Lhe new Clvll
Code
'1G8 ArLlcle 27. Any person sufferlng maLerlal or moral loss because a publlc servanL or
employee refuses or neglecLs, wlLhouL [usL cause, Lo perform hls offlclal duLy may
flle an acLlon for damages and oLher rellef agalnsL Lhe laLLer, wlLhouL pre[udlce Lo
any dlsclpllnary admlnlsLraLlve acLlon LhaL may be Laken.
HI'JCKL8 ?es.

ln Lhe SC case, Lhe SollclLor Ceneral argued LhaL lL was noL Lhe peLlLloner's duLy Lo
furnlsh uelmo a copy of Lhe ulrecLor's declslon ln an aLLempL Lo cover up Lhe
peLlLloner's dellberaLe omlsslon Lo lnform Lhe laLLer of Lhe same.

SC's sLand were:

1. lL was Lhe peLlLloner's duLy Lo enforce Lhe sald declslon
2. 1he peLlLloner should have had Lhe decency Lo meeL wlLh uelmo's faLher Lo
lnform Lhem abouL Lhe declslon
3. Pe could have lnformed uelmo of Lhe copy of Lhe declslon lf he weren'L able
Lo furnlsh her a copy or he could have added her name ln Lhe
commencemenL prlnLed programme and announced lL durlng Lhe exerclses
4. eLlLloner dlsobeyed hls superlor's orders by refuslng Lo glve Lhe honors due
Lo uelmo, Pavlng an excuse LhaL he dld noL wanL Lo be embarrassed whlch
lead Lo Lhe pre[udlce and dlsregard of uelmo's rlghLs
3. eLlLloner dld noL exLend Lhe courLesy of meeLlng uelmo's faLher who Lrled
several Llmes Lo see hlm ln hls offlce whlch lead Lo Mr. uelmo Lo sufferlng
exLreme dlsappolnLmenL and humlllaLlon.

uefendanL, belng a publlc offlcer should have acLed wlLh clrcumspecLlon and due
regard Lo Lhe rlghLs of uelmo. ln as much as he exceeded Lhe scope of hls auLhorlLy
by deflanLly dlsobeylng Lhe lawful dlrecLlve of hls superlor, defendanL was found
llable for damages ln hls personal capaclLy.

1he CourL of Appeals' declslon was afflrmed wlLh Lhe awardlng of addlLlonal
damages. Moral damages are awarded Lo uelmo's parenLs ln Lhelr own behalf.