USC v CA

GR L-79237 10/18/88
Facts
Private respondent enrolled in the College of
Architecture, University of San Carlos (USC),
during the first semester of school year
1978-79. At the end of the second semester
of that school year, she obtained a grade of
"I.C." (Incomplete) in Architecture 121, and
grades of "5's" (failures) in Architecture 122
and Architecture 123. The following school
year, 1979-1980, she shifted to the College
of Commerce of the USC. Some of the units
she had completed when she was still an
architecture student were then carried over
and credited in her new course. As a
commerce student, she obtained good
grades. So, on December 10, 1981, she
wrote 5 the Council of Deans of the USC,
requesting that her grades of 5s in
Architecture 121 and Architecture 122 be

disregarded in the computation of her grade

average.
Issue
WON the school be compelled by mandamus
to allow the respondent to graduate with
honors
Held
No. even if she succeeded in removing her
failing grades, it was still within the sound
discretion of the petitioners to determine
whether private respondent was entitled to
graduate with honors. The Court finds that
petitioners did not commit a grave abuse of
discretion in denying the honors sought by
private respondent under the circumstances.
Indeed, the aforesaid change of grades did
not automatically entitle her to the award of
honors.

===========================
==================
BARONS V. CA
GR 126486 2/9/98
Facts
Barons Marketing purchased, on credit, from
Phelps Dodges electrical wires and cable in
the total amount of P4,102,483.30. Under the
sales invoices issued by Phelps Dodge to
Barons Mktg for the subject purchases, it is
stipulated that interest at 12% on the
amount of attys fees and collection. Barons
Mktg paid P300,000 out of its total purchases
leaving an unpaid account of P3,802,478.20.
Phelps Dodge wrote Barons Mktg demanding
payment of its outstanding obligations due
Phelps Dodge. Baron Mktg responded by
requesting if it could pay its outstanding
account in monthly installments of P500,000
plus 1%interest per month until full payment,
this request was rejected and Phelps Dodge

demanded full payment Phelps Dodge then

filed a complaint before the Pasig Trial Court
for the recovery of P3,802,478.20 and it also
prayed to be awarded with attorneys fee at
the rate of 25% of the amount demanded,
exemplary damages in the amount of
P100,000, the expenses of litigation and the
costs of suit.
Issue
W/ON private respondent is guilty of abuse of
right
Held
No. a creditor cannot be considered in delay
if he refuses to accept partial performance
because, unless otherwise provided by law or
stipulated by the parties, a creditor cannot
be compelled to accept
partial performance; however, if good faith
necessitates acceptance or if the creditor
abuses his right in not accepting, the creditor

will incur in delay if he does not accept such

partial performance.
===========================
===================
UNIV. OF EAST V. HADER
GR 132344 2/17/00
Facts
Romeo Jader took his law proper at UE from
1984-88. During the first semester of his last
year in law school, he failed to take the
examination for Practice Court I in which he
obtained an incomplete grade. He filed an
application for removal of the incomplete
grade given by Prof. Carlos Ortega on
February 1, 1988 which was approved by
Dean Celedonio Tiongson after the payment
of required fees. He took the exam on March
28 and on May 30, the professor gave him a
grade of 5.

His name was still on the tentative

list of candidates for graduation. Likewise, his
named appeared in the invitation for the
commencement exercises which was held on
April 16, 1988. When he learnt of his
deficiency, he dropped from his Bar Review
classes thereby made him ineligible to take
the bar exam.
He filed a civil suit against UE for
damages because he suffered moral shock,
mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, and sleepless
nights due to UEs negligence. The petitioner
denied liability arguing that it never led
respondent to believe that he completed the
requirements for an LlB degree when his
name was included in the tentative list of
graduating students. The court ruled in favor
of the respondent.
Issue

Whether or not UE be held liable for damages

to the respondent.
Held
The petition lacks merit.
The court ruled that the petitioners liability
arose from its failure to promptly inform the
result of the examination and in misleading
respondent into believing that the latter had
satisfied all the requirements for graduation.
However, while petitioner was guilty of
negligence and thus liable to respondent for
the latters actual damages, we hold that
respondent should not have been awarded
moral damages. 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.
===========================
=================
VALENZUELA V. CA

GR 83122 10/19/90
Facts
Valenzuela, General Agent of Philippine
American General Insurance Company, Inc
authorized to sell in behalf of Philamgen
solicited marine insurance from Delta Motors,
Inc. amounting to P4.4M entitling him to a
32% commission or P1.6M. premium
payments of P1,946,886 were paid directly to
Philamgen. Philamgen wanted a 50% share
of Valenzuela's commission but Valenzuela
refused. Because of his refusal, the officers of
Philamgen reversed his commission due him,
placed agency transactions on a cash and
carry basis thus removing the 60-day credit
for premiums due, threatened to cancel
policies issued by his agency and leaked out
the news that he has substantial accounts
with Philamgen. His agency with Philamgen
was terminated
Issue

W/N Valuenuela should be NOT be held liable

since non-payment of the premium renders
the policy invalid
Held
Yes. The principal may not defeat the agent's
right to indemnification by a termination of
the contract of agency. Where the principal
terminates or repudiates the agent's
employment in violation of the contract of
employment and without cause ... the agent
is entitled to receive either the amount of net
losses caused and gains prevented by the
breach, or the reasonable value of the
services rendered. Thus, the agent is entitled
to prospective profits which he would have
made except for such wrongful termination
provided that such profits are not conjectural,
or
speculative
but
are
capable
of
determination upon some fairly reliable
basis.

===========================
=================
Marmont v. GUIANG
GR 79734 12/8/87
Facts
MOA (May 2, 1975) between Marmont (hotel
and resort business) and Maris Trading where
latter is to install the water system of the
Marmont Resort Hotel for P40k. Maris
installed a water supply facility (well and
water pump) on the property owned by Sps.
Guiang. MOA between Maris and Aurora,
witness by Federico Guiang where latter
would be paid P1500 for the portion of the
property wherein the well and pump were
installed and would transfer all rights to
Maris. > Inadequacy of water supply to meet
demand of Marmont Hotel, Advise of another
contractor to install a submersible pump in
the well (to increase pressure and improve
water flow), Permission to inspect and modify

water pump from Marmont not granted by

Sps. Guiang.
Issue
WON Marmont has possessory rights
Held
Yes. Marmont Hotel is a third person
beneficiary of the Sale between Maris and
Sps. Guiang because the sole purpose of the
sale is to provide a water supply system for
Marmont. Hence, Marmont has possessory
rights and thus cannot have been prevented
from accessing the water supply facility.
===========================
==================
LLORENTE V. SANDIGANBAYAN
GR 85464 10/3/91
Facts
Cresente Y. Llorente, Jr., a public officer, being
then the Mayor of Sindangan, Zamboanga

del Norte, in the exercise of his official and

administrative functions, did then and there,
wilfully, unlawfully and criminally with
evident bad faith refuse to sign and approve
the payrolls and vouchers representing the
payments of the salaries and other
emoluments of Leticia G. Fuertes, without
just valid cause and without due process of
law, thereby causing undue injury to the said
Leticia G. Fuertes.
Issue
WON Llorente is liable for damages
Held
No. To hold a person liable under this section,
the concurrence of the following elements
must be established beyond reasonable
doubt by the prosecution:

(1) that the accused is a public officer or a

private person charged in conspiracy with
the former;
(2) that said public officer commits the
prohibited acts during the performance of his
or her official duties or in relation to his or
her public positions;
(3) that he or she causes undue injury to any
party, whether the government or a private
party; and
(4) that the public officer has acted with
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross
inexcusable negligence.
The solicitor general, in his manifestation,
[12] points out that undue injury requires
proof of actual injury or damage, citing our
ruling in Alejandro vs. People[13] and Jacinto

vs.
Sandiganbayan.[14]
Inasmuch
as
complainant was actually paid all her claims,
there was thus no undue injury established.
===========================
==================
HERMOSISIMA V. CA
GR L-14628 9/30/60
Facts
Case filed in Court of First Instance of Cebu
which rendered decision in favor of P
(soledad). Lower Courts decision was
modified by the Court of Appeals by
increasing compensatory damages and moral
damages. Soledad Cagigas, a teacher and
petitioner, who was almost ten (10) years
younger than she, used to go around
together and were regarded as engaged,
although he had made no promise of
marriage prior thereto their intimacy
developed among them Soledad advised
petitioner that she was in the family way,

whereupon he promised to marry her. Their

child, Chris Hermosisima, was born. However
defendant married one Romanita Perez.
Issue
Whether or not moral damages are
recoverable, under our laws, for breach of
promise to marry?
Held
When the woman becomes pregnant and
subsequently delivers. Although she cannot
recover moral damages for the breach,
nevertheless she can recover compensatory
damages for medical and hospitalization
expenses as well as attorneys fees.
===========================
==================
WASSMER V. VELEZ
GR L-20089 12/26/64
Facts

In 1954, Beatriz Wassmer and Francisco

Velez arranged their marriage to be held on
September 4 of the same year. The bride-tobe has been devoted with all the
preparations for their wedding. However, two
days before their marriage, Paking left a
note that they must postpone the marriage
for his mother was against it. A day before
their wedding, Paking wrote again that the
wedding shall push through. Worse, Paking
did not show up on their wedding day
causing Wassmer to be publicly humiliated.
The breach of promise to marry made
by Velez prompted Wassmer to file a civil suit
against the former. Velez never filed an
answer, thus, awarding moral and exemplary
damages to Wassmer.
Velez appealed on the court and
stated that he failed to attend the wedding
day because of fortuitous events. He also
insisted that he cannot be civilly liable for

there is no law that acts upon the breach of

promise to marry. He also contested the
award of moral and exemplary damages.
Issue
Whether or not moral or exemplary damages
may be awarded in a breach of promise to
marry suit.
Held
A mere breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong.
Howver, Wassmer has
already made preparations for the wedding.
Velezs failure to appear on the wedding day
is contrary to morals, good customs and
public policy which is embodied on Article 21
of the Civil Code. Under the law, the injured
party is entitled to moral damages as well as
to exemplary damages because Velezs acted
in wanton, reckless and oppressive manner
(Article 2232) in breaching his promise to
marry Wassmer.

===========================
==================
TANJANCO V. CA
GR L-18630 12/17/66
Facts
Apolonio Trajanco courted Araceli Santos.
Since he promised her marriage, she
consented to his pleas for carnal knowledge.
As a result, she conceived a child, and due to
her condition, she had to resign from her
work. Because she was unable to support
herself and
the baby, and the Apolonio refused to marry
her, she instituted an action for damages,
compelling the defendant to recognize the
unborn child, pay her monthly support, plus
P100,000 in moral and exemplary damages.
Issue

Whether or not the acts of petitioner

constitute seduction as contemplated in Art.
21.
Held
No, it is not. Seduction is more than mere
sexual intercourse or a breach of promise to
marry. It connotes essentially the idea of
deceit, enticement superior power or abuse
of confidence on the part of the seducer to
which the woman has yielded. In this case,
for 1 whole year, the woman maintained
intimate sexual relations with the defendant,
and such conduct is incompatible with the
idea of seduction. Plainly here there is
voluntariness and mutual passion, for had
the plaintiff been deceived, she would not
have again yielded to his embraces for a
year.
Posted by Jay Gerochi at 7:11 AM