Scribd
Upload
401 views1 page

UE Vs Jader

Romeo Jader graduated from UE College of Law in 1988 but failed to take the final exam for one course, receiving an incomplete grade. After taking the exam, he was invited to graduation ceremonies and took a leave of absence to prepare for the bar exam. However, UE had not removed the incomplete grade, so he was not eligible to take the bar exam. Jader sued UE for damages. The Supreme Court found UE negligent for not informing Jader of his academic status but did not award moral damages since Jader also had a responsibility to verify his eligibility. UE was ordered to pay actual damages but not moral damages.

Uploaded by

SyElfredG
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
401 views1 page

UE Vs Jader

Romeo Jader graduated from UE College of Law in 1988 but failed to take the final exam for one course, receiving an incomplete grade. After taking the exam, he was invited to graduation ceremonies and took a leave of absence to prepare for the bar exam. However, UE had not removed the incomplete grade, so he was not eligible to take the bar exam. Jader sued UE for damages. The Supreme Court found UE negligent for not informing Jader of his academic status but did not award moral damages since Jader also had a responsibility to verify his eligibility. UE was ordered to pay actual damages but not moral damages.

Uploaded by

SyElfredG
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

[G.R. No. 132344. February 17, 2000.

]
UNIVERSITY OF THE EAST, petitioner, vs. ROMEO A. JADER, respondent.
FACTS:
Romeo Jader graduated at UE College of law from 1984-88. During his last year, 1st semester, he failed
to take the regular final examination in Practical Court 1where he was given an incomplete grade remarks. He
filed an application for removal of the incomplete grade given by Prof. Carlos Ortega on February 1, 1988
which was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after the payment of required fees. He took the exam on
March 28 and on May 30, the professor gave him a grade of 5.
The commencement exercise of UE College of law was held April 16, 1988, 3PM. In the invitation, his
name appeared. In preparation for the bar exam, he took a leave of absence from work from April 20- Sept 30,
1988. He had his pre-bar class review in FEU. Upon learning of such deficiency, he dropped his review classes
and was not able to take the bar exam.
Jader sued UE for damages resulting to moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched
reputation, wounded feelings, sleepless nights due to UEs negligence.

ISSUE:
Whether UE should be held liable for misleading a student into believing JADER satisfied all the
requirements for graduation when such is not the case. Can he claim moral damages?

HELD:
SC held that petitioner was guilty of negligence and this liable to respondent for the latters actual
damages. Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic status and not wait
for the latter to inquire from the former. However, respondent should not have been awarded moral damages
though JADER suffered shock, trauma, and pain when he was informed that he could not graduate and will not
be allowed to take the bar examinations as what CA held because its also respondents duty to verify for
himself whether he has completed all necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations. As a
senior law student, he should have been responsible in ensuring that all his affairs specifically those in relation
with his academic achievement are in order. Before taking the bar examinations, it doesnt only entail a mental
preparation on the subjects but there are other prerequisites such as documentation and submission of
requirements which 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

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy