10. UE vs.
Jader operation of an academic program, enforcement of rules and regulations, and
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
University of the East vs. Jader
G.R. No. 132344. February 17, 2000.*
UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST, petitioner, vs. ROMEO A. JADER, respondent.
Civil Law; 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 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.—The Court takes judicial notice of
the traditional practice in educational institutions wherein the professor
directly furnishes his/her students their grades. 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. Although commencement exercises
are but a formal ceremony, it nonetheless
________________
*
 FIRST DIVISION.
805
VOL. 325, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 805
University of the East vs. Jader
is not an ordinary occasion, since such ceremony is the educational
institution’s way of announcing to the whole world that the students included
in the list of those who will be conferred a degree during the baccalaureate
ceremony have satisfied all the requirements for such degree. Prior or
subsequent to the ceremony, the school has the obligation to promptly inform
the student of any problem involving the latter’s grades and performance and
also most importantly, of the procedures for remedying the same.
Same;  Same; 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.—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.
Same;  Same; The negligent act of a professor who fails to observe the
rules of the school, for instance by not promptly submitting a student’s grade,
is not only imputable to the professor but is an act of the school, being his
employer.—The college dean is the senior officer responsible for the
the supervision of faculty and student services. He must see to it that his own
professors and teachers, regardless of their status or position outside of the
university, must comply with the rules set by the latter. The negligent act of a
professor who fails to observe the rules of the school, for instance by not
promptly submitting a student’s grade, is not only imputable to the professor
but is an act of the school, being his employer.
Same;  Same; Want of care to the conscious disregard of civil
obligations coupled with a conscious knowledge of the cause naturally
calculated to produce them would make the erring party liable.—Educational
institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic status
and not wait for the latter to inquire from the
806
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
University of the East vs. Jader
former. The conscious indifference of a person to the rights or welfare
of the person/persons who may be affected by his act or omission can
support a claim for damages. Want of care to the conscious disregard of civil
obligations coupled with a conscious knowledge of the cause naturally
calculated to produce them would make the erring party liable.
Same;  Same; The modern tendency is to grant indemnity for damages
in cases where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not illicit.—
Petitioner cannot pass on its blame to the professors to justify its own
negligence that led to the delayed relay of information to respondent. When
one of two innocent parties must suffer, he through whose agency the loss
occurred must bear it. The modern tendency is to grant indemnity for
damages in cases where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not
illicit. If mere fault or negligence in one’s acts can make him liable for
damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad
faith make him liable. A person should be protected only when he acts in the
legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in
good faith, but not when he acts with negligence or abuse.
Same;  Same; While petitioner was guilty of negligence and thus liable
to respondent for the latter’s actual damages, Court holds that respondent
should not have been awarded moral damages.—While petitioner was guilty
of negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latter’s actual damages,
we hold that respondent should not have been awarded moral damages. We
do not agree with the Court of Appeals’ findings that respondent suffered
shock, trauma and pain when he was informed that he could not graduate
and will not be allowed to take the bar examinations. At the very least, it
behooved on respondent to verify for himself whether he has completed all
necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations. 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. Given these considerations, we fail to see how respondent could
have suffered untold embarrassment in attending the graduation rites,
Page 1 of 5
enrolling in the bar review classes and not being able to take the bar exams.
If respondent was indeed humiliated by his failure to take the bar, he brought
this upon himself by not verifying if he has satisfied all the requirements
including his school records, before preparing himself for the bar
examination.
807
VOL. 325, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 807
University of the East vs. Jader
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
     Puno and Puno for petitioner.
     Thelma A. Jader for private respondent.
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
May 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? This is the issue in the instant petition
for review premised on the following undisputed facts as summarized by the
trial court and adopted by the Court of Appeals (CA), 1 to wit:
“Plaintiff was enrolled in the defendants’ College of Law from 1984 up to
1988. In the first semester of his last year (School year 1987-1988), he failed
to take the regular final examination in Practice Court I for which he was
given an incomplete grade (Exhibits ‘2,’ also Exhibit ‘H’). He enrolled for the
second semester as fourth year law student (Exhibit ‘A’) and on February 1,
1988 he filed an application for the removal of the incomplete grade given
him by Professor Carlos Ortega (Exhibits ‘H-2,’ also Exhibit ‘2’) which’ was
approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after payment of the required fee. He
took the examination on March 28, 1988. On May 30, 1988, Professor Carlos
Ortega submitted his grade. It was a grade of five (5). (Exhibits ‘H-4,’ also
Exhibits ‘2-L,’ ‘-N’).
“In the meantime, the Dean and the Faculty Members of the College of
Law met to deliberate on who among the fourth year students should be
allowed to graduate. The plaintiff’s name appeared in the Tentative list of
Candidates for graduation for the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (LL.B) as of
Second Semester (1987-1988) with the following annotation:
_________________
1
 Court of Appeals (CA) Decision promulgated October 10, 1997 penned
by Justice Barcelona, with Justices Mabutas, Jr. and Aquino, concurring, pp.
5-6; Rollo, pp. 12-13.
808
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
University of the East vs. Jader
“JADER ROMEO A.
Def. Conflict of Laws—x-1-87-88, Practice Court I—Inc., 1-87-88. C-1 to
submit transcript with S.O. (Exhibits ‘3,’ ‘3-C-1,’ ‘3-C-2’)
“The 35th Investitures & Commencement Ceremonies for the candidates
of Bachelor of Laws was scheduled on the 16th of April 1988 at 3:00 o’clock
in the afternoon, and in the invitation for that occasion the name of the
plaintiff appeared as one of the candidates. (Exhibits ‘B,’ ‘B-6,’ ‘B-6-A’). At the
foot of the list of the names of the candidates there appeared however 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 (Exhibit ‘B-
7-A’).
“The plaintiff attended the investiture ceremonies at F. dela Cruz
Quadrangle, U.E., Recto Campus, during the program of which he went up
the stage when his name was called, escorted by her (sic) mother and his
eldest brother who assisted in placing the Hood, and his Tassel was turned
from left to right, and he was thereafter handed by Dean Celedonio a rolled
white sheet of paper symbolical of the Law Diploma. His relatives took
pictures of the occasion (Exhibits ‘C’ to ‘C-6,’ ‘D-3’ to ‘D-11’).
“He tendered a blow-out that evening which was attended by neighbors,
friends and relatives who wished him good luck in the forthcoming bar
examination. There were pictures taken too during the blow-out (Exhibits ‘D’
to ‘D-1’).
“He thereafter prepared himself for the bar examination. He took a leave
of absence without pay from his job from April 20, 1988 to September 30,
1988 (Exhibit ‘G’) and enrolled at the pre-bar review class in Far Eastern
University (Exhibits ‘F to ‘F-2’). Having learned of the deficiency he dropped
his review class and was not able to take the bar examination.” 2
Consequently, respondent sued petitioner for damages alleging that he
suffered moral shock, mental anguish, serious
________________
2
 A check with the Attorney’s List in the Court shows that private
respondent is not a member, of the Philippine Bar.
(http.//www.supremecourt.gov.ph).
809
VOL. 325, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 809
University of the East vs. Jader
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and sleepless nights when
he was not able to take the 1988 bar examinations arising from the latter’s
negligence. He prayed for an award of moral and exemplary damages,
unrealized income, attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
In its answer with counterclaim, 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. After trial, the lower court rendered judgment as
follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing judgment is hereby rendered in favor
of the plaintiff and against the defendant ordering the latter to pay plaintiff the
sum of THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY PESOS
(P35,470.00) with legal rate of interest from the filing of the complaint until
Page 2 of 5
fully paid, the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) as attorney’s
fees and the cost of suit.
Defendant’s counterclaim is, for lack of merit, hereby dismissed.
SO ORDERED.3
which on appeal by both parties was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA)
with modification. The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the lower Court’s Decision is
hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION 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. Costs against
defendant-appellee.
SO ORDERED.4
_________________
3
 Decision of Regional Trial Court (RTC-Manila Branch IX) dated
September 4, 1990 penned by Judge Edilberto Sandoval, pp. 8-9; RTC
Records, pp. 192-193; Rollo, pp. 8-9.
4
 CA Decision, p. 24; Rollo, p. 31.
810
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
University of the East vs. Jader
Upon the denial of its motion for reconsideration, petitioner UE elevated the
case to this Court on a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, arguing that it has no liability to respondent Romeo A. Jader,
considering that the proximate and immediate cause of the alleged damages
incurred by the latter arose out of his own negligence in not verifying from the
professor concerned the result of his removal exam.
The petition lacks merit.
When a student is enrolled in any educational or learning institution, a
contract of education is entered into between said institution and the student.
The professors, teachers or instructors hired by the school are considered
merely as agents and administrators tasked to perform the school’s
commitment under the contract. Since the contracting parties are the school
and the student, the latter is not duty-bound to deal with the former’s agents,
such as the professors with respect to the status or result of his grades,
although nothing prevents either professors or students from sharing with
each other such information. The Court takes judicial notice of the traditional
practice in educational institutions wherein the professor directly furnishes
his/her students their grades. 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. Although commencement exercises
are but a formal ceremony, it nonetheless is not an ordinary occasion, since
such ceremony is the educational institution’s way of announcing to the
whole world that the students included in the list of those who will be
conferred a degree during the baccalaureate ceremony have satisfied all the
requirements for such degree. Prior or subsequent to the ceremony, the
school has the obligation to promptly inform the student of any problem
involving the latter’s grades and performance and also most importantly, of
the procedures for remedying the same.
811
VOL. 325, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 811
University of the East vs. Jader
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. 5 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.6
The college dean is the senior officer responsible for the operation of an
academic program, enforcement of rules and regulations, and the
supervision of faculty and student services. 7 He must see to it that his own
professors and teachers, regardless of their status or position outside of the
university, must comply with the rules set by the latter. The negligent act of a
professor who fails to observe the rules of the school,
_______________
5
 Tolentino, New Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. I, (1960 ed.)
citing Wood v. Conrad, 2, S.B. 83, 5d N.W. 95.
6
 Mahowald v. Minnesota Gas Co. (Minn) 344 NW2d 856. See
also Jackson v. H.H. Robertson Co., 118 Ariz 29, 574 P2d 82; Cummins v.
West Linn, 21 Or. App 643, 536 P2d 455.
7
 Hawes and Hawes, “The Concise Dictionary of Education,” p. 62, 1982
ed. cited in Sarmiento, Manual, p. 164.
812
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
University of the East vs. Jader
Page 3 of 5
for instance by not promptly submitting a student’s grade, is not only
imputable to the professor but is an act of the school, being his employer.
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 which states:
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes
damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Article 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. 8 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.9 Schools and professors cannot just take students for
granted and be indifferent to them, for without the latter, the former are
useless.
Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their
academic status and not wait for the latter to
________________
8
 PNB v. CA, 83 SCRA 237 (1978) cited in Sea Commercial Company v.
CA, G.R. No. 122823, November 25, 1999; 319 SCRA 210.
9
 Dean Roscoe Pound, Introduction to the Philosophy of Law.
813
VOL. 325, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 813
University of the East vs. Jader
inquire from the former. The conscious indifference of a person to the rights
or welfare of the person/persons who may be affected by his act or omission
can support a claim for damages. 10 Want of care to the conscious disregard
of civil obligations coupled with a conscious knowledge of the cause naturally
calculated to produce them would make the erring party liable. 11 Petitioner
ought to have known that time was of the essence in the performance of its
obligation to inform respondent of his grade. It cannot feign ignorance that
respondent will not prepare himself for the bar exams since that is precisely
the immediate concern after graduation of an LL.B. graduate. It failed to act
seasonably. Petitioner cannot just give out its student’s grades at any time
because a student has to comply with certain deadlines set by the Supreme
Court on the submission of requirements for taking the bar. Petitioner’s
liability arose from its failure to promptly inform respondent of the result of an
examination and in misleading the latter into believing that he had satisfied
all requirements for the course. Worth quoting is the following disquisition of
the respondent court:
“It is apparent from the testimony of Dean Tiongson that defendant-appellee
University had been informed during the deliberation that the professor in
Practice Court I gave plaintiff-appellant a failing grade. Yet, defendant-
appellee still did not inform plaintiff-appellant of his failure to complete the
requirements for the degree nor did they remove his name from the tentative
list of candidates for graduation. Worse, defendant-appellee university,
despite the knowledge that plaintiff-appellant failed in Practice Court
I, again included plaintiff-appellant’s name in the “tentative” list of candidates
for graduation which was prepared after the deliberation and which became
the basis for the commencement rites program. Dean
_______________
10
 Texas Pacific & Oil Co. v. Robertson, 125 Tex 4, 79 SW2d 830, 98 ALR
262.
11
 See Helms v. Universal Atlas Cement Co., (CA5 Tex) 202 F2d 421 cert
de 346 US 858, 98 L ed 372, 74 S Ct 74; Otto Kuehne Preserving Co. v.
Allen (CA8 Mo) 148 F 166; See also Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala 514,
9 So 722; Richmond & P.R. Co. v. Vance, 93 Ala 144, 9 So 574.
814
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
University of the East vs. Jader
Tiongson reasons out that plaintiff-appellant’s name was allowed to remain in
the tentative list of candidates for graduation in the hope that the latter would
still be able to remedy the situation in the remaining few days before
graduation day. Dean Tiongson, however, did not explain how plaintiff-
appellant Jader could have done something to complete his deficiency if
defendant-appellee university did not exert any effort to inform plaintiff-
appellant of his failing grade in Practice Court I.”12
Petitioner cannot pass on its blame to the professors to justify its own
negligence that led to the delayed relay of information to respondent. When
one of two innocent parties must suffer, he through whose agency the loss
occurred must bear it.13 The modern tendency is to grant indemnity for
damages in cases where there is abuse of right, even when the act is not
illicit.14 If mere fault or negligence in one’s acts can make him liable for
damages for injury caused thereby, with more reason should abuse or bad
faith make him liable. A person should be protected only when he acts in the
legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in
good faith, but not when he acts with negligence or abuse. 15
However, while petitioner was guilty of negligence and thus liable to
respondent for the latter’s actual damages, we hold that respondent should
not have been awarded moral damages. We do not agree with the Court of
Appeals’ findings that respondent suffered shock, trauma and pain when he
was informed that he could not graduate and will not be allowed to take the
bar examinations. At the very least, it behooved on respondent to verify for
himself whether he has completed all necessary requirements to be eligible
Page 4 of 5
for the bar examinations. As a senior law student, respondent should have
been responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs,
________________
12
 CA Decision, pp. 222-23; Rollo, pp. 29-30.
13
 Ohio Farmers, Ins. Co. v. Norman, (App) 122 Ariz 330, 594 P2d 1026.
14
 Sea Commercial Company v. CA, G.R. No. 122823, November 26,
1999, 319 SCRA 210.
15
 Tolentino, Civil Code, 1990 ed., Vol. I, p. 61.
815
VOL. 325, FEBRUARY 17, 2000 815
University of the East vs. Jader
specifically those pertaining to his academic achievement, are in order. Given
these considerations, we fail to see how respondent 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 respondent was
indeed humiliated by his failure to take the bar, he brought this upon himself
by not verifying if he has satisfied all the requirements including his school
records, before preparing himself for the bar examination. Certainly, taking
the bar examinations does not only entail a mental preparation on the
subjects thereof; there are also prerequisites of documentation and
submission of requirements which the 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 attorney’s fees; and the costs of the suit. The award of moral
damages is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
     Davide, Jr.  (C.J., Chairman), Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.
     Puno, J., No part.
Judgment affirmed with modification.
Note.—The law explicitly authorizes the award of moral damages in
breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
(Del Rosario vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 158 [1997])
——o0o——
816
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Page 5 of 5