UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST Vs ROMEO A. JADER

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 1

FER GRACE CATAYLO NIAGA JD I

UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST vs ROMEO A. JADER


(G.R. No. 132344, February 17, 2000)

FACTS:
Respondent Romeo Jader sued petitioner UE for damages for the
moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings and sleepless nights he suffered when he was not able to
take the 1988 bar examinations arising from the latter’s negligence.
Jader alleged that he got an incomplete grade in Practice Court 1. He
took the removals exam for said subject but he was belatedly informing that
it was a 5. The graduation ceremony invitation included his name as one of
the candidates but the invitation had a footnote that the list is tentative and
still subject to the completion of requirements. Jader attended the ceremony,
he marched with his parents, was given a symbolic diploma, took pictures,
tendered a blow-out attended by neighbors, friends, and relatives, took a
leave of absence without pay from work, and enrolled at a pre-bar review
class.
In its answer, petitioner denied liability arguing mainly that it never led
Jader to believe that he completed the requirements for an LLB degree when
his name was included in the tentative list of graduating students.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the university be held liable for damages for
misleading a student into believing that the latter had satisfied all the
requirements for graduation?
RULING:
Yes, it can be held liable. Articles 19 and 20 of the Civil Code states
that 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 and every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their
academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire from the former.
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.
Hence petitioner is liable for 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.

You might also like