You are on page 1of 1

UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST vs. JADER G.R. NO.

132344, February 07, 2000 FACTS:

Romeo Jader was enrolled in the University of the East College of Law. He failed to take the regular examination in Practice Court 1 for which he was given an incomplete grade. He enrolled for the second semester as a fourth year student, and filed an application for the removal of the incomplete grade which was approved by the Dean. In the meantime, the faculty members and the Dean met to deliberate who among the fourth year students should be allowed to graduate. He attended the Investiture and Commencement Exercise of the said school and in the invitation of the occasion, the name of the plaintiff appeared as one of the candidates. At the foot of the list of the names of the candidates there appeared, however, that it is a tentative list. He thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination and took review classes. However, he was not able to take the bar examination because his academic requirements is not complete. Consequently, respondent sued petitioner for damages alleging that he suffered moral shock besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, 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 damages, unrealized income, attorneys fees and cost of suit.

ISSUE: Whether or not 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.

HELD: The Supreme Court held that UE is liable for damages. It is the contractual obligation of the school to timely inform and furnish sufficient notice and information to each and every student as to where he or she had already complied with the entire requirement for the conferment of a degree or whether they should be included among those who will graduate. The school 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 suit for abuse of right under Article 19 of the Civil Code. 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.

You might also like