TORTS - 31. Regino v.
Pangasinan College of Science and Technology |1
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology
G.R. No. 156109. November 18, 2004.*
KHRISTINE REA M. REGINO, Assisted and Represented by ARMANDO REGINO,
petitioner, vs. PANGASINAN COLLEGES OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
RACHELLE A. GAMUROT and ELISSA BALADAD, respondents.
Schools and Universities; Administrative Law; Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies; Commission on Higher Education (CHED); The
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies has no application where
a student is not asking for the reversal of the policies of an educational
institution nor demanding that she be allowed to take the final examinations
that she was prevented from taking but is praying for damages.—
Respondents anchored their Motion to Dismiss on petitioner’s alleged failure
to exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the RTC. According to
them, the determination of the controversy hinge on the validity, the wisdom
and the propriety of PCST’s academic policy. Thus, the Complaint should have
been lodged in the CHED, the administrative body tasked under Republic Act
No. 7722 to implement the state policy to “protect, foster and promote the
right of all citizens to affordable quality education at all levels and to take
appropriate steps to ensure that education is accessible to all.” Petitioner
counters that the doctrine finds no relevance to the present case since she is
praying for damages, a remedy beyond the domain of the CHED and well
within the jurisdiction of the courts. Petitioner is correct. The doc-
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
57
VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 18, 2004
57
Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology
trine of exhaustion of administrative remedies has no bearing on the present
case. In Factoran, Jr. v. CA, the Court had occasion to elucidate on the
rationale behind this doctrine: “The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is basic. Courts, for reasons of law, comity, and convenience, should
not entertain suits unless the available administrative remedies have first
been resorted to and the proper authorities have been given the appropriate
opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, if any, committed in the
administrative forum. x x x.” Petitioner is not asking for the reversal of the
policies of PCST. Neither is she demanding it to allow her to take her final
examinations; she was already enrolled in another educational institution. A
reversal of the acts complained of would not adequately redress her
grievances; under the circumstances, the consequences of respondents’ acts
could no longer be undone or rectified.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Exhaustion of administrative remedies is
applicable when there is competence on the part of the administrative body
to act upon the matter complained of—the CHED does not have the power
to award damages.—Exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable
when there is competence on the part of the administrative body to act upon
the matter complained of. Administrative agencies are not courts; they are
neither part of the judicial system, nor are they deemed judicial tribunals.
Specifically, the CHED does not have the power to award damages. Hence,
petitioner could not have commenced her case before the Commission.
Same; Same; Same; Same; One of the exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine
is when the issue is purely legal and well within the jurisdiction of the trial
court—an action for damages inevitably calls for the application and
interpretation of the Civil Code.—The exhaustion doctrine admits of
exceptions, one of which arises when the issue is purely legal and well within
the jurisdiction of the trial court. Petitioner’s action for damages inevitably
calls for the application and the interpretation of the Civil Code, a function
that falls within the jurisdiction of the courts.
Actions; Pleadings and Practice; Motions to Dismiss; Every complaint must
sufficiently allege a cause of action, and failure to do so warrants its dismissal;
 TORTS - 31. Regino v.Pangasinan College of Science and Technology |2
A motion to dismiss based on lack of cause of action hypothetically admits
the truth of the alleged facts.—As a rule, every complaint must sufficiently
allege a cause of action;
58
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology
failure to do so warrants its dismissal. A complaint is said to assert a sufficient
cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the
plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for. Assuming the facts that are
alleged to be true, the court should be able to render a valid judgment in
accordance with the prayer in the complaint. A motion to dismiss based on
lack of cause of action hypothetically admits the truth of the alleged facts. In
their Motion to Dismiss, respondents did not dispute any of petitioner’s
allegations, and they admitted that “x x x the crux of plaintiff’s cause of action
is the determination of whether or not the assessment of P100 per ticket is
excessive or oppressive.” They thereby premised their prayer for dismissal on
the Complaint’s alleged failure to state a cause of action. Thus, a
reexamination of the Complaint is in order.
Schools and Universities; Contracts; The school-student relationship is
contractual in nature.—In Alcuaz v. PSBA, the Court characterized the
relationship between the school and the student as a contract, in which “a
student, once admitted by the school is considered enrolled for one
semester.” Two years later, in Non v. Dames II, the Court modified the
“termination of contract theory” in Alcuaz by holding that the contractual
relationship between the school and the student is not only semestral in
duration, but for the entire period the latter are expected to complete it.”
Except for the variance in the period during which the contractual
relationship is considered to subsist, both Alcuaz and Non were unanimous
in characterizing the school-student relationship as contractual in nature. The
school-student relationship is also reciprocal. Thus, it has consequences
appurtenant to and inherent in all contracts of such kind—it gives rise to
bilateral or reciprocal rights and obligations. The school undertakes to
provide students with education sufficient to enable them to pursue higher
education or a profession. On the other hand, the students agree to abide by
the academic requirements of the school and to observe its rules and
regulations.
Same; Same; The terms of the school-student contract are defined at the
moment of its inception—upon enrolment of the student.—The terms of the
school-student contract are defined at the moment of its inception—upon
enrolment of the student. Standards of academic performance and the code
of behavior and discipline are usually set forth in manuals distributed to new
students at the start of every school year. Further, schools inform prospective
enrollees
59
VOL. 443, NOVEMBER 18, 2004
59
Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology
the amount of fees and the terms of payment. In practice, students are
normally required to make a down payment upon enrollment, with the
balance to be paid before every preliminary, midterm and final examination.
Their failure to pay their financial obligation is regarded as a valid ground for
the school to deny them the opportunity to take these examinations.
Same; Education is not a measurable commodity; The importance of grades
cannot be discounted in a setting where education is generally the gate pass
to employment opportunities and better life—such grades are often the
means by which a prospective employer measures whether a job applicant
has acquired the necessary tools or skills for a particular profession or
trade.—Education is not a measurable commodity. It is not possible to
determine who is “better educated” than another. Nevertheless, a student’s
grades are an accepted approximation of what would otherwise be an
intangible product of countless hours of study. The importance of grades
 TORTS - 31. Regino v.Pangasinan College of Science and Technology |3

cannot be discounted in a setting where education is generally the gate pass admission to theological studies in a seminary for prospective priests. The
to employment opportunities and better life; such grades are often the Court defined the freedom of an academic institution thus: “to decide for
means by which a prospective employer measures whether a job applicant itself aims and objectives and how best to attain them x x x free from outside
has acquired the necessary tools or skills for a particular profession or trade. coercion or interference save possibly when overriding public welfare calls
for some restraint.”
Same; A fee that was not part of the school-student contract entered into at
the start of the school year could not be unilaterally imposed to the prejudice PETITION for review on certiorari of the orders of the Regional Trial Court of
of the enrollees.—In the present case, PCST imposed the assailed revenue- Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, Br. 48.
raising measure belatedly, in the middle of the semester. It exacted the dance
party fee as a condition for the students’ taking the final examinations, and
ultimately for its recognition of their ability to finish a course. The fee, The facts are stated in the Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and
however, was not part of the school-student contract entered into at the start Technology, 443 SCRA 56, G.R. No. 156109 November 18, 2004
of the school year. Hence, it could not be unilaterally imposed to the
prejudice of the enrollees.
Same; Quasi-Delicts; Torts; An academic institution may be held liable for tort
even if it has an existing contract with its students where the act that violated
the contract may also be a tort.— Generally, liability for tort arises only
between parties not otherwise bound by a contract. An academic institution,
however, may be held liable for tort even if it has an existing contract with its
students, since the act that violated the contract may also be a tort.
60

60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology
Same; Academic Freedom; Words and Phrases; “Academic Freedom,”
Explained.—In their Memorandum, respondents harp on their right to
“academic freedom.” We are not impressed. According to present
jurisprudence, academic freedom encompasses the independence of an
academic institution to determine for itself (1) who may teach, (2) what may
be taught, (3) how it shall teach, and (4) who may be admitted to study. In
Garcia v. The Faculty Admission Committee, Loyola School of Theology, the
Court upheld the respondent therein when it denied a female student’s