FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 132344. February 17, 2000]
UNIVERSITY OF
THE EAST, petitioner, vs. ROMEO A. JADER, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
May an educational institution be held
liable for damages for misleading a student into believing that the latter had
satisfied all the requirements for graduation when such is not the case? This
is the issue in the instant petition for review premised on the following
undisputed facts as summarized by the trial court and adopted by the Court of
Appeals (CA),[1] to wit:
"Plaintiff
was enrolled in the defendants’ College of Law from 1984 up to 1988. In the
first semester of his last year (School year 1987-1988), 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 ‘H-2’, also Exhibit ‘2’) which was approved by Dean
Celedonio Tiongson after payment of the required fee. He took the examination
on March 28, 1988. On May 30, 1988, Professor Carlos Ortega submitted his
grade. It was a grade of five (5). (Exhibits ‘H-4’, also Exhibits ‘2-L’,
‘2-N’).
"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
(1987-1988) with the following annotation:
"JADER ROMEO
A.
Def. Conflict of Laws - x-1-87-88, Practice Court I - Inc., 1-87-88. C-1 to
submit transcript with S.O. (Exhibits ‘3’, ‘3-C-1’, ‘3-C-2’)." Jurismis
"The 35th Investitures & Commencement Ceremonies for the candidates of
Bachelor of Laws was scheduled on the 16th of April 1988 at
3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, and in the invitation for that occasion the name
of the plaintiff appeared as one of the candidates. (Exhibits ‘B’, ‘B-6’,
‘B-6-A’). At the foot of the list of the names of the candidates there appeared
however the following annotation:
‘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, Culture and Sports (Exhibit
‘B-7-A’).
"The
plaintiff attended the investiture ceremonies at F. dela Cruz Quadrangle, U.E.,
Recto Campus, during the program of which he went up the stage when his name
was called, escorted by her (sic) mother and his eldest brother who assisted in
placing the Hood, and his Tassel was turned from left to right, and he was
thereafter handed by Dean Celedonio a rolled white sheet of paper symbolical of
the Law Diploma. His relatives took pictures of the occasion (Exhibits ‘C’ to
‘C-6’, ‘D-3’ to ‘D-11’).
"He tendered
a blow-out 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 blow-out (Exhibits ‘D’ to ‘D-1’).
"He
thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination. He took a leave of absence
without pay from his job from April 20, 1988 to September 30, 1988 (Exhibit
‘G’) and enrolled at the pre-bar review class in Far Eastern University
(Exhibits ‘F’ to ‘F-2’). Having learned of the deficiency he dropped his review
class and was not able to take the bar examination."[2]
Consequently, respondent sued petitioner for
damages alleging that he suffered moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and sleepless nights when he was not
able to take the 1988 bar examinations arising from the latter’s negligence. He
prayed for an award of moral and exemplary damages, unrealized income,
attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
In its answer with counterclaim, petitioner
denied liability arguing mainly that it never led respondent to believe that he
completed the requirements for a Bachelor of Laws degree when his name was
included in the tentative list of graduating students. After trial, the lower
court rendered judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, in view
of the foregoing judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant ordering the latter to pay plaintiff the sum of THIRTY
FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY PESOS (P35,470.00) with legal rate of
interest from the filing of the complaint until fully paid, the amount of FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) as attorney’s fees and the cost of suit. Jjjuris
Defendant’s
counterclaim is, for lack of merit, hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.[3]
which on appeal by both parties was affirmed
by the Court of Appeals (CA) with modification. The dispositive portion of the
CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the
light of the foregoing, the lower Court’s Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the
MODIFICATION that defendant-appellee, in addition to the sum adjudged by the
lower court in favor of plaintiff-appellant, is also ORDERED to pay
plaintiff-appellant the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS for moral
damages. Costs against defendant-appellee.
SO ORDERED.[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, considering that the proximate and
immediate cause of the alleged damages incurred by the latter arose out of his
own negligence in not verifying from the professor concerned the result of his
removal exam.
The petition lacks merit.
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 considered merely as agents and
administrators tasked to perform the school’s commitment under the contract.
Since the contracting parties are the school and the student, the latter is not
duty-bound to deal with the former’s agents, such as the professors with
respect to the status or result of his grades, although nothing prevents either
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. It is
the contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and furnish
sufficient notice and information to 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 ceremony is the educational institution’s
way of announcing to the whole world that the students included in the 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 inform the student of any
problem involving the latter’s grades and performance and also most
importantly, of the procedures for remedying the same. justice
Petitioner, in belatedly informing
respondent of the result of the removal examination, particularly at a time
when he had already commenced preparing for the bar exams, cannot be said to
have acted in good faith. Absence of good faith must be sufficiently established
for a successful prosecution by the aggrieved party in a suit for abuse of
right under Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith connotes an honest
intention to abstain from taking undue 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 exercise control, much
less influence, over the way an educational institution should run its affairs,
particularly in 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 professors with respect to the submission of reports involving the
students’ standing. Exclusive control means that no other person or entity had
any control over the instrumentality which caused the damage or injury.[6]
The college dean is the senior officer
responsible for the operation of an academic program, enforcement of rules and
regulations, and the supervision of faculty and student services.[7] He must see to it that his own professors and
teachers, regardless of their status or position outside of the university,
must comply with the rules set by the latter. The negligent act of a professor
who fails to observe the rules of the school, for instance by not promptly
submitting a student’s grade, is not only imputable to the professor but is an
act of the school, being his employer.
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 dealings enshrined in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil
Code which states:
Art. 19. Every
person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his
duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.
Art. 20. Every
person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Article 19 was intended to expand the
concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of
moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in
statutory law.[8] In civilized society, 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 indifferent to them, for without the latter, the former are
useless.
Jksmä â Ó
Educational institutions are duty-bound to
inform the students of their academic status and not wait for the latter to
inquire from the former. The conscious indifference of a person to the rights
or welfare of the person/persons who may be affected by his act or omission can
support a claim for damages.[10] Want of care to the conscious 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 performance of its obligation to inform respondent of his grade.
It cannot feign ignorance that respondent will not 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 examination and in misleading the latter into
believing that he had satisfied all requirements for the course. Worth quoting
is the following disquisition of the respondent court:
"It is
apparent from the testimony of Dean Tiongson that defendant-appellee University
had been informed during the deliberation that the professor in Practice Court
I gave plaintiff-appellant a failing grade. Yet, defendant-appellee still did
not inform plaintiff-appellant of his failure to complete the requirements for
the degree nor did they remove his name from the tentative list of candidates
for graduation. Worse, defendant-appellee university, despite the knowledge
that plaintiff-appellant failed in Practice Court I, again included
plaintiff-appellant’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
plaintiff-appellant’s name was allowed to remain in the tentative list of
candidates for graduation in the hope that the latter would still be able to
remedy the situation in the remaining few days before graduation day. Dean
Tiongson, however, did not explain how plaintiff-appellant Jader could have
done something to complete his deficiency if defendant-appellee university did
not exert any effort to inform plaintiff-appellant of his failing grade in
Practice Court I."[12] Esä m
Petitioner cannot pass on its blame to the
professors to justify its own negligence that led to the delayed relay of
information to respondent. When one of two innocent parties must suffer, he
through whose agency the loss occurred must bear it.[13] The modern tendency is to grant indemnity for
damages in cases where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not
illicit.[14] If mere fault or negligence in one’s acts can make
him liable for damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse
or bad faith make him liable. A person should be protected only when he acts in
the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and
in good faith, but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.[15]
However, while petitioner was guilty of
negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latter’s actual damages, 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 graduate and will not be
allowed to take the bar examinations. At the very least, it behooved on
respondent to verify for himself whether he has completed all necessary
requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations. As a senior law student,
respondent should have been responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs,
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 school
records, before preparing himself for the bar examination. Certainly, taking
the bar examinations does not only entail a mental preparation on the subjects
thereof; there are also prerequisites of documentation and submission of requirements
which the prospective examinee must meet.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner is ORDERED to PAY respondent the sum of
Thirty-five Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Pesos (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 Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as attorney’s
fees; and the costs of the suit. The award of moral damages is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.2/29/00 2:21 PM
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Kapunan, and Pardo, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., no part.
[1] Court of Appeals (CA) Decision promulgated October 10, 1997 penned by Justice Barcelona, with Justices Mabutas, Jr. and Aquino, concurring, pp. 5-6; Rollo, pp. 12-13.
[2] A check with the Attorney’s List in the Court shows that private respondent is not a member of the Philippine Bar. (http.//www.supremecourt.gov.ph)
[3] Decision of Regional Trial Court (RTC-Manila Branch IX) dated September 4, 1990 penned by Judge Edilberto Sandoval, pp. 8-9; RTC Records, pp. 192-193; Rollo, pp. 8-9
[4] CA Decision, p. 24; Rollo, p. 31.
[5] Tolentino, New Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, (1960 ed.) citing Wood v. Conrad, 2, S.B. 83, 50 N.W. 95.
[6] Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. (Minn) 344 NW2d 856. See also Jackson v. H.H. Robertson Co., 118 Ariz 29, 574 P2d 82; Cummins v. West Linn, 21 Or. App 643, 536 P2d 455.
[7] Hawes and Hawes, "The Concise Dictionary of Education," p. 62, 1982 ed. cited in Sarmiento, Manual, p. 164.
[8] PNB v. CA, 83 SCRA 237 (1978) cited in Sea Commercial Company v. CA, G.R. No. 122823, November 25, 1999.
[9] Dean Roscoe Pound, Introduction to the Philosophy of Law.
[10] Texas Pacific & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex 4, 79 SW2d 830, 98 ALR 262.
[11] See Helms v. Universal Atlas Cement Co., (CA5 Tex) 202 F2d 421 cert de 346 US 858, 98 L ed 372, 74 S Ct 74; Otto Kuehne Preserving Co. v. Allen (CA8 Mo) 148 F 166; See also Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala 514, 9 So 722; Richmond & P.R. Co. v. Vance, 93 Ala 144, 9 So 574.
[12] CA Decision, pp. 222-23; Rollo, pp. 29-30.
[13] Ohio Farmers, Ins. Co. v. Norman, (App) 122 Ariz 330, 594 P2d 1026.
[14] Sea Commercial Company v. CA, G.R. No. 122823, November 25, 1999.
[15] Tolentino, Civil Code, 1990 ed., Vol. I, p. 61.