Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
|
UNIVERSITY
OF SANTO |
|
G.R. No. 165569 |
|
TOMAS, GLENDA A. VARGAS, |
|
|
|
MA. SOCORRO S. GUANHING, |
|
|
|
in their capacities as Dean and
|
|
|
|
Assistant Dean, respectively,
of |
|
Present: |
|
the College of Nursing of the |
|
|
|
University of Santo Tomas, and |
|
CORONA, C. J.,
Chairperson, |
|
RODOLFO N. CLAVIO, in his |
|
VELASCO, JR., |
|
capacity as Registrar of the |
|
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, |
|
University of Santo Tomas, |
|
DEL CASTILLO, and |
|
Petitioners, |
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
-
versus - |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANES B. SANCHEZ, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondent. |
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Where a valid cause of
action exists, parties may not simply bypass litigation by the simple
expediency of a Motion to Dismiss. Instead of abbreviating the proceedings, it
has had the opposite effect: unnecessary litigation for almost seven years. Here, in particular, where any resolution of
the case will depend on the appreciation of evidence, a full-blown trial is
necessary to unearth all relevant facts and circumstances.
This petition for review
on certiorari assails the Decision[1] dated
July 20, 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 79404 which affirmed
the denial of petitioners’ motion to dismiss and directed the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Dinalupihan, Bataan, Branch 5, to proceed with trial. Also assailed is the Resolution[2]
dated September 22, 2004 denying the motion for reconsideration.
Factual Antecedents
This case began with a Complaint[3] for
Damages filed by respondent Danes
B. Sanchez (respondent) against the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and its
Board of Directors, the Dean and the Assistant Dean of the UST College of
Nursing, and the University Registrar for their alleged unjustified refusal to
release the respondent’s Transcript of Records (ToR). The case was raffled to Branch 5 of the RTC
of Dinalupihan, Bataan, and docketed as Civil Case No. DH-788-02.
In his
Complaint, respondent alleged that he graduated from UST on April 2, 2002 with
a Bachelor’s Degree of Science in Nursing.
He was included in the list of candidates for graduation and attended
graduation ceremonies. On April 18,
2002, respondent sought to secure a copy of his ToR with the UST Registrar’s
Office, paid the required fees, but was only given a Certificate of Graduation
by the Registrar. Despite repeated
attempts by the respondent to secure a copy of his ToR, and submission of his
class cards as proof of his enrolment, UST refused to release his records,
making it impossible for him to take the nursing board examinations, and
depriving him of the opportunity to make a living. The respondent prayed that the RTC order UST
to release his ToR and hold UST liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages,
attorney’s fees, and the costs of suit.
Instead
of filing an Answer, petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss[4] where
they claimed that they refused to release respondent’s ToR because he was not a
registered student, since he had not been enrolled in the university for the
last three semesters. They claimed that
the respondent’s graduation, attendance in classes, and taking/passing of
examinations were immaterial because he ceased to be a student when he failed
to enroll during the second semester of school year 2000-2001. They also sought the dismissal of the case on
the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action, as paragraph
10 of the complaint admitted that:
10. On several occasions, [respondent] went to
see the [petitioners] to get his ToR, but all of these were futile for he was
not even entertained at the Office of the Dean. Worst, he was treated like a
criminal forcing him to admit the fact that he did not enroll for the last
three (3) semesters of his schooling. [Petitioner] Dean tried to persuade the
[respondent] to give the original copies of the Class Cards which he has in his
possession. These are the only [bits of] evidence on hand to prove that he was
in fact officially enrolled.
[Respondent] did not give the said class cards and instead gave photo
copies to the [Petitioner] Dean. The
Office of the Dean of Nursing of [petitioner] UST became very strict in
receiving documents from the [respondent].
[They have] to be scrutinized first before the same are received. Receiving, as [respondent] believes, is
merely a ministerial function [of] the [petitioners] and the documents
presented for receiving need not be scrutinized especially so when x x x they
are not illegal. Copies of the class
cards are hereto attached as “F” hereof.[5]
After the parties filed their responsive pleadings,[6] petitioners filed a Supplement to their
Motion to Dismiss,[7]
alleging that respondent sought administrative recourse before the Commission
on Higher Education (CHED) through a letter-complaint dated January 21,
2003. Thus, petitioners claimed that the
CHED had primary jurisdiction to resolve matters pertaining to school
controversies, and the filing of the instant case was premature.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
After another exchange of pleadings,[8] the RTC issued an Order[9] dated
April 1, 2003 denying the Motion to Dismiss on the ground that the issues
involved required an examination of the evidence, which should be threshed out
during trial. Petitioners’ Motion for
Reconsideration[10]
was denied in an Order[11] dated
August 1, 2003, so petitioners sought recourse before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The CA
affirmed the denial of petitioners’ Motion to Dismiss, and directed the RTC to
proceed with trial.
Issues
Petitioners
seek recourse before us raising the following issues:
1)
The
CHED exercises quasi-judicial power over controversies involving school matters
and has primary jurisdiction over respondent’s demand for the release of his
ToR. Thus, respondent failed to exhaust
administrative remedies;
2)
Since
respondent sought recourse with both the CHED and the RTC, respondent violated
the rule against forum-shopping; and
3)
The
Complaint failed to state a cause of action, since respondent admitted that he
was not enrolled in UST in the last three semesters prior to graduation.
Our Ruling
The
petition is denied for lack of merit.
The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply in this case.
The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a
remedy before an administrative agency is provided, the
administrative agency concerned must be given the opportunity to decide a
matter within its jurisdiction before an action is brought before the courts.[12] Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is
a ground for dismissal of the action.[13]
In this
case, the doctrine does not apply because petitioners failed to demonstrate
that recourse to the CHED is mandatory – or even possible – in an action such
as that brought by the respondent, which is essentially one for mandamus and
damages. The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies admits of numerous exceptions,[14] one of
which is where the issues are purely legal and well within the jurisdiction of
the trial court, as in the present case.[15] Petitioners’ liability – if any – for damages
will have to be decided by the courts, since any judgment inevitably calls for
the application and the interpretation of the Civil Code.[16] As such, exhaustion of administrative
remedies may be dispensed with. As we
held in Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology:[17]
x x x
exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable when there is
competence on the part of the administrative body to act upon the matter
complained of. Administrative agencies
are not courts; x x x neither [are they] part of the judicial system, [or]
deemed judicial tribunals. Specifically, the
CHED does not have the power to award damages. Hence, petitioner could not
have commenced her case before the Commission.
(Emphasis ours)
In
addition, the rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where the
administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions.[18] Thus, an essential requisite for this
doctrine to apply is the actual existence of quasi-judicial power.[19] However, petitioners have not shown that the
CHED possesses any such power to “investigate facts or ascertain the existence
of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions.”[20] Indeed, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7722[21]
otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994, certainly does not contain
any express grant to the CHED of judicial or quasi-judicial power.
Petitioners
also claim that even without any express grant of quasi-judicial power by the
legislature, the CHED is authorized to adjudicate the case filed by respondent
on the strength of the following provisions of the Manual of Regulations of
Private Schools:[22]
(1) Section
33, which authorizes the CHED to cancel or revoke the graduation of any student
whose records are found to be fraudulent:
Section
33. Authority to Graduate Without Department Approval. One of the benefits
which may be made available for accredited schools of the appropriate level is
the authority to graduate students from accredited courses or programs of study
without prior approval of the Department, the conditions of which are as
follows:
a) The school head must furnish the Regional
Office of the region where the school is situated a copy of its certificate of
accreditation.
b) Within two weeks after the graduation
exercise, the school shall submit to the Regional Office concerned an
alphabetical list of graduates by course, accompanied by a certification under
oath signed by the school registrar certifying that the students listed (1)
have complied with all the requirements of the Department, (2) were conferred
their respective certificates or degrees on a specific date, (3) have complete
scholastic records on file in the school, and (4) have their Form 137 for high
school and Form IX for college, as the case may be, in the custody of the
school. This list shall be sufficient basis for issuing special orders, if
still necessary.
The
school will be held fully liable for the veracity of the records without
prejudice to any legal action, including revocation of government recognition,
as may be called for under the circumstances.
The
Department reserves the right to cancel or revoke the graduation of any student
whose records are found to be fraudulent.
(2) Section
72, which permits the school to withhold students’ credentials under certain specified circumstances, and authorizes
the CHED to
issue a student’s credentials in case
these are unlawfully withheld by the school:
Section
72. Withholding of Credentials. The release of the transfer credentials of any
pupil or student may be withheld for reasons of suspension, expulsion, or
non-payment of financial obligations or property responsibility of the pupil or
student to the school. The credentials shall be released as soon as his
obligation shall have been settled or the penalty of suspension or expulsion
lifted.
However,
if, after due inquiry, a school is found to have unjustifiably refused to issue
transfer credentials or student records, the Department may issue the same
without prejudice to the imposition of appropriate administrative sanctions
against the school concerned.
The most
cursory perusal of these provisions shows that they are inapplicable. Section
33 concerns the conditions and authority of accredited schools to authorize the
graduation of students without the prior authority of the CHED. Corollarily, the CHED may cancel or revoke
the graduation if it is found to be fraudulent. We are not aware that the CHED
has taken any action to revoke the respondent’s graduation, though it is free
to do so.
As
regards Section 72, it refers to a school’s right to withhold the release of
credentials due to “suspension, expulsion, or non-payment of financial
obligations or property responsibility.”
None of these circumstances is present, and there has been no intimation
that respondent’s ToR has been withheld on any of these grounds.
In any
event, even if we were to assume that these provisions were applicable, the
CHED remains without authority to adjudicate an action for damages.
Respondent is not guilty of forum shopping
Forum shopping exists when,
as a result
of an adverse opinion in one
forum, a
party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two
or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that
one or the other court would make a favorable disposition.[23] Here, there can be no forum shopping
precisely because the CHED is without quasi-judicial power, and cannot make any
disposition of the case – whether favorable or otherwise. As we held in Cabarrus, Jr. v. Bernas:[24]
The
courts, tribunal and agencies referred to under Circular No. 28-91, revised
Circular No. 28-91 and Administrative Circular No. 04-94 are those vested with
judicial powers or quasi-judicial powers and those who not only hear and
determine controversies between adverse parties, but to make binding orders or
judgments. As succinctly put by R.A.
157, the NBI is not performing judicial or quasi-judicial functions. The NBI cannot therefore be among those
forums contemplated by the Circular that can entertain an action or proceeding,
or even grant any relief, declaratory or otherwise.
The Complaint states a cause of action
Under Rule 16, Section 1(g) of the
Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss may be made on the ground that the pleading
asserting the claim states no cause of action.[25] To clarify the essential test required to
sustain dismissal on this ground, we have explained that “[t]he test of the
sufficiency of the facts found in a petition, to constitute a cause of action,
is whether admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment
upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the petition.”[26] Stated otherwise, a complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of
action if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the
plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for.[27]
The Complaint makes the following
essential allegations: that petitioners unjustifiably refused to release
respondent’s ToR despite his having obtained a degree from UST; that
petitioners’ claim that respondent was not officially enrolled is untrue; that
as a result of petitioners’ unlawful actions, respondent has not been able to
take the nursing board exams since 2002; that petitioners’ actions violated
Articles 19-21 of the Civil Code; and that petitioners should be ordered to
release respondent’s ToR and held liable for P400,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary
damages, P50,000.00
as attorney’s fees and costs of suit, and P15,000.00
as actual damages. Clearly, assuming
that the facts alleged in the Complaint are true, the RTC would be able to
render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the Complaint.
Petitioners
argue that paragraph 10 of the Complaint contains an admission that respondent
was not officially enrolled at UST. Said
paragraph reads:
10. On several occasions, [respondent] went to
see the [petitioners] to get his ToR, but all of these were futile for he was
not even entertained at the Office of the Dean. Worst, he was treated like a
criminal forcing him to admit the fact that he did not enroll for the last
three (3) semesters of his schooling. [Petitioner] Dean tried to persuade the
[respondent] to give the original copies of the Class Cards which he has in his
possession. These are the only [bits of] evidence on hand to prove that he was
in fact officially enrolled.
[Respondent] did not give the said class cards and instead gave photo
copies to the [Petitioner] Dean. The
Office of the Dean of Nursing of [petitioner] UST became very strict in
receiving documents from the [respondent].
[They have] to be scrutinized first before the same are received. Receiving, as [respondent] believes, is
merely a ministerial function [of] the [petitioners] and the documents
presented for receiving need not be scrutinized especially so when x x x they
are not illegal. Copies of the class
cards are hereto attached as “F” hereof.[28]
This statement certainly does not
support petitioners’ claim that respondent admitted that he was not enrolled. On the contrary, any allegation concerning
the use of force or intimidation by petitioners, if substantiated, can only
serve to strengthen respondent’s complaint for damages.
We fully agree with the RTC’s finding that a resolution of the case
requires the presentation of evidence during trial. Based on the parties’ allegations, the issues
in this case are far from settled. Was
respondent enrolled or not? Was his
degree obtained fraudulently? If so, why
was he permitted by the petitioners to graduate? Was there fault or negligence on the part of
any of the parties? Clearly, these are
factual matters which can be best ventilated in a full-blown proceeding before
the trial court.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.
The
Decision dated July 20, 2004 and
the Resolution dated September 22, 2004 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 79404 are AFFIRMED.
The Regional Trial
Court of Dinalupihan, Bataan, Branch 5, is DIRECTED to continue the
proceedings in Civil Case No. DH-788-02 with all deliberate speed.
Costs against petitioners.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice