10/9/2016

G.R.No.132344

TodayisSunday,October09,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
FIRSTDIVISION
G.R.No.132344February17,2000
UNIVERSITYOFTHEEAST,petitioner,
vs.
ROMEOA.JADER,respondent.
YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:
Mayaneducationalinstitutionbeheldliablefordamagesformisleadingastudentintobelievingthatthelatterhad
satisfiedalltherequirementsforgraduationwhensuchisnotthecase?Thisistheissueintheinstantpetitionfor
reviewpremisedonthefollowingundisputedfactsassummarizedbythetrialcourtandadoptedbytheCourtof
Appeals(CA),1towit:
Plaintiffwasenrolledinthedefendants'CollegeofLawfrom1984upto1988.Inthefirstsemesterofhis
last year (School year 19871988), he failed to take the regular final examination in Practice Court I for
which he was given an incomplete grade (Exhibits "2", also Exhibit "H"). He enrolled for the second
semester as fourth year law student (Exhibit "A") and on February 1, 1988 he filed an application for the
removal of the incomplete grade given him by Professor Carlos Ortega (Exhibits "H2", also Exhibit "2")
which was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after payment of the required fee. He took the
examinationonMarch28,1988.OnMay30,1988,ProfessorCarlosOrtegasubmittedhisgrade.Itwasa
gradeoffive(5).(Exhibits"H4",alsoExhibits"2L","2N").
1 w p h i1 .n t

In the meantime, the Dean and the Faculty Members of the College of Law met to deliberate on who
among the fourth year students should be allowed to graduate. The plaintiff's name appeared in the
Tentative List of Candidates for graduation for the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) as of Second
Semester(19871988)withthefollowingannotation:
JADERROMEOA.
Def.ConflictofLawsx18788,PracticeCourtIInc.,18788C1tosubmittranscriptwithS.O.(Exhibits
"3","3C1","3C2").
The 35th Investitures & Commencement Ceremonies for the candidates of Bachelor of Laws was
scheduledonthe16thofApril1988at3:00o'clockintheafternoon,andintheinvitationforthatoccasion
thenameoftheplaintiffappearedasoneofthecandidates.(Exhibits"B","B6","B6A").Atthefootofthe
listofthenamesofthecandidatesthereappearedhoweverthefollowingannotation:
This is a tentative list Degrees will be conferred upon these candidates who satisfactorily complete
requirements as stated in the University Bulletin and as approved of the Department of Education,
CultureandSports(Exhibit"B7A").
TheplaintiffattendedtheinvestitureceremoniesatF.delaCruzQuadrangle,U.E.,RectoCampus,during
theprogramofwhichhewentupthestagewhenhisnamewascalled,escortedbyher(sic)motherandhis
eldestbrotherwhoassistedinplacingtheHood,andhisTasselwasturnedfromlefttoright,andhewas
thereafter handed by Dean Celedonio a rolled white sheet of paper symbolical of the Law Diploma. His
relativestookpicturesoftheoccasion(Exhibits"C"to"C6","D3"to"D11").
He tendered a blowout that evening which was attended by neighbors, friends and relatives who wished
him good luck in the forthcoming bar examination. There were pictures taken too during the blowout
(Exhibits"D"to"D1").
He thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination. He took a leave of absence without pay from his
jobfromApril20,1988toSeptember30,1988(Exhibit"G")andenrolledattheprebarreviewclassinFar
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/feb2000/gr_132344_2000.html

1/5

10/9/2016

G.R.No.132344

EasternUniversity.(Exhibits"F"to"F2").Havinglearnedofthedeficiencyhedroppedhisreviewclassand
wasnotabletotakethebarexamination.2
Consequently, respondent sued petitioner for damages alleging that he suffered moral shock, mental anguish,
seriousanxiety,besmirchedreputation,woundedfeelingsandsleeplessnightswhenhewasnotabletotakethe
1988 bar examinations arising from the latter's negligence. He prayed for an award of moral and exemplary
damages,unrealizedincome,attorney'sfees,andcostsofsuit.
In its answer with counterclaim, petitioner denied liability arguing mainly that it never led respondent to believe
thathecompletedtherequirementsforaBachelorofLawsdegreewhenhisnamewasincludedinthetentative
listofgraduatingstudents.Aftertrial,thelowercourtrenderedjudgmentasfollows:
WHEREFORE,inviewoftheforegoingjudgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiffandagainstthe
defendant ordering the latter to pay plaintiff the sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED
SEVENTYPESOS(P35,470.00)withlegalrateofinterestfromthefilingofthecomplaintuntilfullypaid,the
amountofFIVETHOUSANDPESOS(P5,000.00)asattorney'sfeesandthecostofsuit.
Defendant'scounterclaimis,forlackofmerit,herebydismissed.
SOORDERED.3
which on appeal by both parties was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) with modification. The dispositive
portionoftheCAdecisionreads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the lower Court's Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that defendantappellee, in addition to the sum adjudged by the lower court in favor of
plaintiffappellant, is also ORDERED to pay plaintiffappellant the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND
(P50,000.00)PESOSformoraldamages.Costsagainstdefendantappellee.
SOORDERED.4
Upon the denial of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner UE elevated the case to this Court on a petition for
review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that it has no liability to respondent Romeo A. Jader,
consideringthattheproximateandimmediatecauseoftheallegeddamagesincurredbythelatteraroseoutof
hisownnegligenceinnotverifyingfromtheprofessorconcernedtheresultofhisremovalexam.
Thepetitionlacksmerit.
When a student is enrolled in any educational or learning institution, a contract of education is entered into
between said institution and the student. The professors, teachers or instructors hired by the school are
consideredmerelyasagentsandadministratorstaskedtoperformtheschool'scommitmentunderthecontract.
Sincethecontractingpartiesaretheschoolandthestudent,thelatterisnotdutyboundtodealwiththeformer's
agents,suchastheprofessorswithrespecttothestatusorresultofhisgrades,althoughnothingpreventseither
professors or students from sharing with each other such information. The Court takes judicial notice of the
traditional practice in educational institutions wherein the professor directly furnishes his/her students their
grades.Itisthecontractualobligationoftheschooltotimelyinformandfurnishsufficientnoticeandinformationto
each and every student as to whether he or she had already complied with all the requirements for the
conferment of a degree or whether they would be included among those who will graduate. Although
commencement exercises are but a formal ceremony, it nonetheless is not an ordinary occasion, since such
ceremonyistheeducationalinstitution'swayofannouncingtothewholeworldthatthestudentsincludedinthe
list of those who will be conferred a degree during the baccalaureate ceremony have satisfied all the
requirements for such degree. Prior or subsequent to the ceremony, the school has the obligation to promptly
informthestudentofanyprobleminvolvingthelatter'sgradesandperformanceandalsomostimportantly,ofthe
proceduresforremedyingthesame.
Petitioner,inbelatedlyinformingrespondentoftheresultoftheremovalexamination,particularlyatatimewhen
hehadalreadycommencedpreparingforthebarexams,cannotbesaidtohaveactedingoodfaith.Absenceof
goodfaithmustbesufficientlyestablishedforasuccessfulprosecutionbytheaggrievedpartyinasuitforabuse
ofrightunderArticle19oftheCivilCode.Goodfaithconnotesanhonestintentiontoabstainfromtakingundue
advantage of another, even though the forms and technicalities of the law, together with the absence of all
information or belief of facts, would render the transaction unconscientious.5 It is the school that has access to
those information and it is only the school that can compel its professors to act and comply with its rules,
regulations and policies with respect to the computation and the prompt submission of grades. Students do not
exercisecontrol,muchlessinfluence,overthewayaneducationalinstitutionshouldrunitsaffairs,particularlyin
disciplining its professors and teachers and ensuring their compliance with the school's rules and orders. Being
the party that hired them, it is the school that exercises general supervision and exclusive control over the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/feb2000/gr_132344_2000.html

2/5

10/9/2016

G.R.No.132344

professorswithrespecttothesubmissionofreportsinvolvingthestudents'standing.Exclusivecontrolmeansthat
nootherpersonorentityhadanycontrolovertheinstrumentalitywhichcausedthedamageorinjury.6
Thecollegedeanistheseniorofficerresponsiblefortheoperationofanacademicprogram,enforcementofrules
andregulations,andthesupervisionoffacultyandstudentservices.7Hemustseetoitthathisownprofessors
andteachers,regardlessoftheirstatusorpositionoutsideoftheuniversity,mustcomplywiththerulessetbythe
latter.Thenegligentactofaprofessorwhofailstoobservetherulesoftheschool,forinstancebynotpromptly
submittingastudent'sgrade,isnotonlyimputabletotheprofessorbutisanactoftheschool,beinghisemployer.
Considering further, that the institution of learning involved herein is a university which is engaged in legal
education, it should have practiced what it inculcates in its students, more specifically the principle of good
dealingsenshrinedinArticles19and20oftheCivilCodewhichstates:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice,giveeveryonehisdue,andobservehonestyandgoodfaith.
Art.20.Everypersonwho,contrarytolaw,wilfullyornegligentlycausesdamagetoanother,shallindemnify
thelatterforthesame.
Art.19wasintendedtoexpandtheconceptoftortsbygrantingadequatelegalremedyfortheuntoldnumberof
moralwrongswhichisimpossibleforhumanforesighttoprovidespecificallyinstatutorylaw.8Incivilizedsociety,
men must be able to assume that others will do them no intended injury that others will commit no internal
aggressions upon them that their fellowmen, when they act affirmatively will do so with due care which the
ordinary understanding and moral sense of the community exacts and that those with whom they deal in the
general course of society will act in good faith. The ultimate thing in the theory of liability is justifiable reliance
under conditions of civilized society.9 Schools and professors cannot just take students for granted and be
indifferenttothem,forwithoutthelatter,theformerareuseless.
Educationalinstitutionsaredutyboundtoinformthestudentsoftheiracademicstatusandnotwaitforthelatter
toinquirefromtheformer.Theconsciousindifferenceofapersontotherightsorwelfareoftheperson/persons
whomaybeaffectedbyhisactoromissioncansupportaclaimfordamages.10Wantofcaretotheconscious
disregard of civil obligations coupled with a conscious knowledge of the cause naturally calculated to produce
them would make the erring party liable.11 Petitioner ought to have known that time was of the essence in the
performanceofitsobligationtoinformrespondentofhisgrade.Itcannotfeignignorancethatrespondentwillnot
prepare himself for the bar exams since that is precisely the immediate concern after graduation of an LL.B.
graduate. It failed to act seasonably. Petitioner cannot just give out its student's grades at any time because a
student has to comply with certain deadlines set by the Supreme Court on the submission of requirements for
taking the bar. Petitioner's liability arose from its failure to promptly inform respondent of the result of an
examinationandinmisleadingthelatterintobelievingthathehadsatisfiedallrequirementsforthecourse.Worth
quotingisthefollowingdisquisitionoftherespondentcourt:
ItisapparentfromthetestimonyofDeanTiongsonthatdefendantappelleeUniversityhadbeeninformed
during the deliberation that the professor in Practice Court I gave plaintiffappellant a failing grade. Yet,
defendantappelleestilldidnotinformplaintiffappellantofhisfailuretocompletetherequirementsforthe
degree nor did they remove his name from the tentative list of candidates for graduation. Worse,
defendantappelleeuniversity,despitetheknowledgethatplaintiffappellantfailedinPracticeCourtI,again
included plaintiffappellant's name in the "tentative list of candidates for graduation which was prepared
after the deliberation and which became the basis for the commencement rites program. Dean Tiongson
reasons out that plaintiffappellant's name was allowed to remain in the tentative list of candidates for
graduationinthehopethatthelatterwouldstillbeabletoremedythesituationintheremainingfewdays
before graduation day. Dean Tiongson, however, did not explain how plaintiff appellant Jader could have
donesomethingtocompletehisdeficiencyifdefendantappelleeuniversitydidnotexertanyefforttoinform
plaintiffappellantofhisfailinggradeinPracticeCourtI.12
Petitionercannotpassonitsblametotheprofessorstojustifyitsownnegligencethatledtothedelayedrelayof
information to respondent. When one of two innocent parties must suffer, he through whose agency the loss
occurredmustbearit.13Themoderntendencyistograntindemnityfordamagesincaseswherethereisabuse
of right, even when the act is not illicit.14 If mere fault or negligence in one's acts can make him liable for
damagesforinjurycausedthereby,withmorereasonshouldabuseorbadfaithmakehimliable.Apersonshould
beprotectedonlywhenheactsinthelegitimateexerciseofhisright,thatis,whenheactswithprudenceandin
goodfaith,butnotwhenheactswithnegligenceorabuse.15
However,whilepetitionerwasguiltyofnegligenceandthusliabletorespondentforthelatter'sactualdamages,
we hold that respondent should not have been awarded moral damages. We do not agree with the Court of
Appeals' findings that respondent suffered shock, trauma and pain when he was informed that he could not
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/feb2000/gr_132344_2000.html

3/5

10/9/2016

G.R.No.132344

graduate and will not be allowed to take the bar examinations. At the very least, it behooved on respondent to
verifyforhimselfwhetherhehascompletedallnecessaryrequirementstobeeligibleforthebarexaminations.As
aseniorlawstudent,respondentshouldhavebeenresponsibleenoughtoensurethatallhisaffairs,specifically
those pertaining to his academic achievement, are in order. Given these considerations, we fail to see how
respondent could have suffered untold embarrassment in attending the graduation rites, enrolling in the bar
review classes and not being able to take the bar exams. If respondent was indeed humiliated by his failure to
take the bar, he brought this upon himself by not verifying if he has satisfied all the requirements including his
schoolrecords,beforepreparinghimselfforthebarexamination.Certainly,takingthebarexaminationsdoesnot
only entail a mental preparation on the subjects thereof there are also prerequisites of documentation and
submissionofrequirementswhichtheprospectiveexamineemustmeet.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is
ORDEREDtoPAYrespondentthesumofThirtyfiveThousandFourHundredSeventyPesos(P35,470.00),with
legal interest of 6% per annum computed from the date of filing of the complaint until fully paid the amount of
FiveThousandPesos(P5,000.00)asattorney'sfeesandthecostsofthesuit.Theawardofmoraldamagesis
DELEIED.
1 w p h i1 .n t

SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,KapunanandPardo,JJ.,concur.
Puno,J.,tooknopart.

Footnotes
1 Court of Appeals (CA) Decision promulgated October 10, 1997 penned by Justice Barcelona, with

JusticesMabutas,Jr.andAquino,concurring,pp.56Rollo,pp.1213.
2 A check with the Attorney's List in the Court shows that private respondent is not a member of the

PhilippineBar.(http.//www.supremecourt.gov.ph).
3 Decision of Regional Trial Court (RTCManila Branch IX) dated September 4, 1990 penned by Judge

EdilbertoSandoval,pp.89RTCRecords,pp.192193Rollo,pp.89.
4CADecision,p.24Rollo,p.31.
5Tolentino,NewCivilCodeofthePhilippines,Vol.I,(1960ed.)citingWoodv.Conrad,2,S.B.83,50N.W.

95.
6Mahowaldv.MinnesotaGasCo.(Minn)344NW2d856.SeealsoJacksonv.H.H.RobertsonCo.,118Ariz

29,574P2d82Cumminsv.WestLinn,21Or.App643,536P2d455.
7HawesandHawes,"TheConciseDictionaryofEducation,"p.62,1982ed.citedinSarmiento,Manual,p.

164.
8PNBv.CA,83SCRA237(1978)citedinSeaCommercialCompanyv.CA,G.R.No.122823,November

25,1999.
9DeanRoscoePound,IntroductiontothePhilosophyofLaw.
10TexasPacific&OilCo.v.Robertson,125Tex4,79SW2d830,98ALR262.
11SeeHelmsv.UniversalAtlasCementCo.,(CA5Tex)202F2d421certde346US858,98Led372,74

SCt74OttoKuehnePreservingCo.v.Allen(CA8Mo)148F166SeealsoAlabamaG.S.R.Co.v.Hill,93
Ala514,9So722Richmond&P.R.Co.v.Vance,93Ala144,9So574.
12CADecision,pp.22223Rollo,pp.2930.
13OhioFarmers,Ins.Co.v.Norman,(App)122Ariz330,594P2d1026.
14SeaCommercialCompanyv.CA,G.R.No.122823,November25,1999.
15Tolentino,CivilCode,1990ed.,Vol,I,p.61.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/feb2000/gr_132344_2000.html

4/5

10/9/2016

G.R.No.132344

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2000/feb2000/gr_132344_2000.html

5/5