UE V JADER
MODIFICATIONS:
PETITIONER: University of the East
RESPONDENT: Romeo A. Jader
CITATION: GR No. 132344
DATE: February 17, 2000
PONENTE: Ynares-Santiago, J.
FACTS:
Romeo A. Jader enrolled at UE Law from 1984-88.
o During his last year, 1st semester he failed
to take the regular examination in
PRACTICAL COURT 1. In which he got a
grade of INCOMPLETE (INC).
o 2nd semester He enrolled, and filed for an
application of removal of the incomplete
grade given by PROF. CARLOS ORTEGA on
February 1, 1988
o It was approved by DEAN CELEDONIO
TIONGSON when he paid the required fees.
IN TH MEANTIME, the faculty members met with the
Dean for the deliberation of graduating students from
4th year.
o On the tentative list, Romeos name
appeared.
o The 35th Investitures & Commencement
Ceremonies for the candidates of Bachelor of
Laws was scheduled on the 16th of April 1988
at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, and in the
invitation for that occasion the name of the
plaintiff appeared as one of the candidates.
He attended the Investiture ceremonies, in
which he was escorted by his mother and his
eldest brother.
o In the invitation, the name of Romero
appeared, however, at the foot of the list of the
candidates, there was 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.
o He also tendered a blow-out that evening
which was attended upon by his neighbors,
friends, and relatives who wished him good
luck for the upcoming bar examinations.
o He prepared himself for the Bar, took a leave
of absence without pay from his job, and
enrolled at the pre-bar review in FEU.
However, he learned that there was a deficiency on his
school records at UE, and that the grade remark of
INCOMPLETE (INC) was not removed in his records.
He then dropped his review class and was not able to
take the bar examinations.
Romeo sued UE 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 latters negligence.
He prayed for an award of moral and exemplary
damages, unrealized income, attorneys fees, and
costs of suit.
UEs COUNTERCLAIM:
o 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.
TRIAL COURT DECISION:
o Rendered decision in favour of the plaintiff
(Romeo A. Jader).
o Ordered the defendant (UE) to pay plaintiff the
sum of:
P35,470.00 with legal rate of interest
from the filing of the complaint until
fully paid
P5,000.00 as attorneys fees and the
cost of suit.
UEs counterclaim - dismissed.
CA DECISION affirmed TC decision WITH
o 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.
ISSUE: WON UE should 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
HELD: YES.
o Educational institutions are duty-bound to
inform the students of their academic status
and not wait for the latter to inquire from the
former.
o 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. 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.
o 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.
o Art. 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. 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.
Schools and professors cannot just take
students for granted and be indifferent to
them, for without the latter, the former are
useless.
o SC held that petitioner was guilty of
negligence and this liable to respondent for
the latters actual damages. However,
respondent should not have been awarded
 moral damages though he suffered shock,
trauma, and pain when he was informed that
he could not graduate and will not be allowed
to take the bar examinations as what CA held
because its also respondents duty to verify
for himself whether he has completed all
necessary requirements to be eligible for the
bar examinations. As a senior law student, he
should have been responsible in ensuring that
all his affairs specifically those in relation with
his academic achievement are in order.
Before taking the bar examinations, it doesnt
only entail a mental preparation on the
subjects but there are other prerequisites
such as documentation and submission of
requirements which 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 attorneys fees; and the costs of the
suit. The award of moral damages is DELETED.
(Ibinalik lang sa TRIAL COURT DECISION.)
GLOBE MACKAY V CA
PETITIONERS: Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp
Herbert C. Hendry
RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals
Restituto M. Tobias
CITATION: GR No. 81262
DATE: August 25, 1989
PONENTE: Cortes, J.
FACTS:
Restituto Tobias - a purchasing agent and
administrative assistant to the engineering operations
manager, discovered fictitious purchases and other
fraudulent transactions
o This caused Globe Mackay Cable and Radio
Corp loss of several thousands of pesos.
o He reported it to his immediate superior
Eduardo T. Ferraren and to the Executive
Vice President and General Manager
Herbert Hendry.
o A day after the report, November 11, 1972,
Hendry told Tobias that he was number one
suspect and ordered him one week forced
leave, not to communicate with the office, to
leave his table drawers open, and to leave the
office keys.
When Tobias returned to work after said leave, Hendry
o called him a crook and a swindler
o ordered him to take a lie detector test, and
o to submit specimen of his handwriting,
signature and initials for police investigation.
On December 6,1972
o the Manila police investigators submitted a
laboratory crime report clearing private
respondent of participation in the anomalies.
o Not satisfied with the police report, petitioners
hired a private investigator, retired Col. Jose
G. Fernandez, who on December 10, 1972,
submitted a report finding Tobias guilty. This
report however expressly stated that further
investigation was still to be conducted.
Nevertheless, on December 12, 1972, petitioner
Hendry issued a memorandum suspending Tobias
from work preparatory to the filing of criminal charges
against him.
Notwithstanding the two police reports exculpating
Tobias from the anomalies and the fact that the report
of the private investigator, was, by its own terms, not
yet complete, Petitioners filed with the Fiscals Office of
Manila a total of six (6) criminal cases against private
respondent Tobias, but were dismissed.
Tobias received a notice of termination of his
employment from petitioners in January 1973, effective
December 1972.
o He sought employment with the Republic
Telephone Company (RETELCO); but
Hendry wrote a letter to RETELCO stating
that Tobias was dismissed by Globe Mackay
due to dishonesty.
Tobias, then, filed a civil case for damages anchored
on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and
abusive acts of petitioners.
TRIAL COURT DECISION: rendered judgment in
favor of private respondent, ordering petitioners to pay
him eighty thousand pesos (P80,000.00) as actual
damages, two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
as moral damages, twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00) as exemplary damages, thirty thousand
pesos (P30,000.00) as attorneys fees, and costs.
COURT OF APPEALS affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE: WON petitioners are liable for damages to
private respondent
HELD:
o Private respondent contends that because of
petitioners abusive manner in dismissing him
as well as for the inhuman treatment he got
from them, the Petitioners must indemnify him
for the damage that he had suffered.
o In determining whether or not the principle of
abuse of rights may be invoked, there is no
rigid test which can be applied. While the
Court has not hesitated to apply Article 19
whether the legal and factual circumstances
called for its application, the question of
whether or not the principle of abuse of rights
has been violated resulting in damages under
Article 20 or Article 21 or other applicable
provision of law, depends on the
circumstances of each case. And in the
instant case, the Court, after examining the
record and considering certain significant
circumstances, finds that all petitioners have
indeed abused the right that they invoke,
causing damage to private respondent and for
which the latter must now be indemnified.
o when Hendry told Tobias to just confess or
else the company would file a hundred more
cases against him until he landed in jail; his
(Hendry) scornful remarks about Filipinos
(You Filipinos cannot be trusted.) as well as
against Tobias (crook, and swindler); the
writing of a letter to RETELCO stating that
Tobias was dismissed by Globe Mackay due
to dishonesty; and the filing of six criminal
cases by petitioners against private
respondent. All these reveal that petitioners
are motivated by malicious and unlawful
intent to harass, oppress, and cause damage
to private respondent. The imputation of guilt
without basis and the pattern of harassment
during the investigations of Tobias transgress
the standards of human conduct set forth in
Article 19 of the Civil Code.
o The Court has already ruled that the right of
the employer to dismiss an employee should
not be confused with the manner in which the
right is exercised and the effects flowing
therefrom. If the dismissal is done abusively,
then the employer is liable for damages to the
employee. Under the circumstances of the
instant case, the petitioners clearly failed to
exercise in a legitimate manner their right to
dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right to
recover damages under Article 19 in relation
to Article 21 of the Civil Code.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
09055 is AFFIRMED.
PE V PE
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Cecilio Pe, et al.
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Alfonso Pe
CITATION: GR No. L-17396
DATE: May 30, 1962
PONENTE: Bautista, Angelo, J.
FACTS:
Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers and sisters of one
Lolita Pe.
At the time of her disappearance on April 14, 1957,
Lolita was 24 years old and unmarried.
Defendant is a married man and works as agent of the
La Perla Cigar and Cigarette Factory. He used to stay
in the town of Gasan, Marinduque, in connection with
his aforesaid occupation.
Defendant was an adopted son of a Chinaman named
Pe Beco, a collateral relative of Lolitas father.
o Because of such fact and the similarity in their
family name, defendant became close to the
plaintiffs who regarded him as a member of
their family.
o Sometime in 1952, defendant frequented the
house of Lolita on the pretext that he wanted
her to teach him how to pray the rosary.
o The two eventually fell in love with each other
and conducted clandestine trysts not only in
the town of Gasan but also in Boac where
Lolita used to teach in a barrio school.
o They exchanged love notes with each other
the contents of which reveal not only their
infatuation for each other but also the extent
to which they had carried their relationship.
o The rumors about their love affairs reached
the ears of Lolitas parents sometime, in 1955,
and since then defendant was forbidden from
going to their house and from further seeing
Lolita. The plaintiffs even filed deportation
proceedings against defendant who is a
Chinese national.
o The affair between defendant and Lolita
continued nonetheless.
Sometime in April, 1957, Lolita was staying with her
brothers and sisters at their residence at 54-B Espaa
Extension, Quezon City
o On April 14, 1957, Lolita disappeared from
said house. After she left, her brothers and
sisters checked up her thing and found that
Lolitas clothes were gone.
o However, plaintiffs found a note on a
crumpled piece of paper inside Lolitas
aparador.
o Said note, written on a small slip of paper
approximately 4" by 3" in size, was in a
handwriting recognized to be that of
defendants.
Honey, suppose I leave here on
Sunday night, and thats 13th of this
month and we will have a date on the
14th, that's Monday morning at 10
a.m.
Reply
Love
The disappearance of Lolita was reported to the police
authorities and the NBI but up to the present there is
no news or trace of her whereabouts.
There is no doubt that the claim of plaintiffs for
damages is based on the fact that defendant, being a
married man, carried on a love affair with Lolita Pe
thereby causing plaintiffs injury in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs and public policy.
TRIAL COURT DECISION:
o In spite of the fact that plaintiffs have clearly
established that in illicit affair was carried on
between defendant and Lolita which caused
great damage to the name and reputation of
plaintiffs who are her parents, brothers and
sisters, the trial court CONSIDERED THEIR
COMPLAINT NOT ACTIONABLE for the
reason that they failed to prove that defendant
deliberately and in bad faith tried to win
Lolitas affection.
o In the absence of proof on this point, the
court may not presume that it was the
defendant who deliberately induced such
relationship. We cannot be unmindful of the
uncertainties and sometimes inexplicable
mysteries of the human emotions. It is a
possibility that the defendant and Lolita simply
fell in love with each other, not only without
any desire on their part, but also against their
better judgment and in full consciousness of
what it will bring to both of them. This is
specially so with respect to Lolita, being an
unmarried woman, falling in love with
defendant who is a married man.
ISSUE: WON the defendant is liable according to
Article 21 of the Civil Code
HELD:
o The Supreme Court disagree with the TCs
view.
o The circumstances under which defendant
tried to win Lolitas affection cannot lead, to
any other conclusion than that it was he who,
thru an ingenious scheme or trickery,
seduced the latter to the extent of making her
fall in love with him.
o This is shown by the fact that defendant
frequented the house of Lolita on the pretext
that he wanted her to teach him how to pray
the rosary. Because of the frequency of his
visits to the latters family who was allowed
free access because he was a collateral
relative and was considered as a member of
her family, the two eventually fell in love with
each other and conducted clandestine love
affairs not only in Gasan but also in Boac
where Lolita used to teach in a barrio school.
o When the rumors about their illicit affairs
reached the knowledge of her parents,
defendant was forbidden from going to their
house and even from seeing Lolita. Plaintiffs
even filed deportation proceedings against
defendant who is a Chinese national.
Nevertheless, defendant continued his love
affairs with Lolita until she disappeared from
the parental home.
o Indeed, no other conclusion can be drawn
from this chain of events than that
defendant not only deliberately, but
through a clever strategy, succeeded in
winning the affection and love of Lolita to
the extent of having illicit relations with
her. The wrong he has caused her and her
family is indeed immeasurable considering
the fact that he is a married man.
o Verily, he has committed an injury to
Lolitas family in a manner contrary to
morals, good customs and public policy
as contemplated in Article 21 of the new
Civil Code.
o WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from
is reversed. Defendant is hereby
sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the sum of
P5,000.00 as damages and P2,000.00 as
attorneys fees and expenses of
litigations.