UE v. Jader G.R. No.

132344 (2000)

Facts: Romeo Jader, a law student enrolled in the University of the East, failed to take the regular final examination in Practice Court I for which he was given an incomplete grade in the 1st semester of his last year (1987-1988). After completing his 2nd semester, Jader filed an application for the removal of the incomplete grade given him by Professor Carlos Ortega. This was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after paying the required fee. He took the examination, and on May 30, 1988, Professor Carlos Ortega submitted his grade, a five (5). Deliberations were held, with Jaders name appearing in the tentative list of candidates for graduation, but annotated with his deficiencies. Invitations were also made, with Jaders name appearing as one of the candidates, albeit annotated as to the tentative nature of the list. Jader attended the said graduation ceremony, vested with all the rites symbolic of his graduation from law school. Believing he had successfully graduated, he took a leave of absence without pay to prepare for the bar examination. Upon his enrollment in the pre-bar review of the Far Eastern University, however, Jader learned of his deficiency, dropped out of the same and ultimately did not take the bar examination. Jader sued UE for damages for suffering moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and sleepless nights arising from the latters negligence. Awards of moral and exemplary damages, unrealized income, attorneys fees, and costs of suit were also prayed for. UE denied liability, arguing that it never led Jader to believe that he completed the requirements for a Law degree when his name was included in the tentative list of graduating students. Trial ensued, with the lower court ruling in favor of Jader, ordering UE to pay 35,470 with legal rate of interest, and 5,000 for attorneys fees and cost of suit. This was modified by the CA to the effect of requiring UE to pay Jader an additional 50,000 for moral damages. Issue: Is UE liable to Romeo Jader, despite the formers allegation that the proximate and immediate cause of the alleged damages incurred

arose out of his own negligence in not verifying the result of his removal exam? Held: UE is still liable to respondent Jader. In a contract of education, since the contracting parties are the school and the student, the latter is not duty-bound to deal with the formers agents, although nothing prevents either professors or students from sharing with each other such information. 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. In belatedly informing Jader, UE 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. It 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. The school exercises general supervision and exclusive control over the professors with respect to the submission of reports involving the students standing, with exclusive control meaning that no other person or entity had any control over the instrumentality which caused the damage or injury. Being a university engaged in legal education, it should have practiced what it inculcates in its students, specifically the principle of good dealings in Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code, the former provision intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs, impossible for human foresight to provide specifically in statutory law. UE failed to act seasonably and cannot feign ignorance that Jader will not prepare himself for the bar exams, since that is precisely the immediate concern after graduation of an LL.B. graduate. Liability arose from its failure to promptly inform him of the exam results and in misleading the latter into believing that he had satisfied all course requirements.

UE v. Jader G.R. No. 132344 (2000)

While UE was guilty of negligence and liable to Jader for actual damages, he should not have been awarded moral damages. At the very least, it behooved on Jader to verify whether he has completed all necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations. As a senior law student, he should have been responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs were in order. The Court fails to see how he 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 Jader was indeed humiliated, he brought this upon himself by not verifying all the requirements including his school records, before preparing himself for the bar examination. Ruling: The assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The award of moral damages is DELETED.