Scribd
Upload
239 views1 page

DIGEST - UE Vs Jader

UE vs. Jader is a 2000 Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding a law student, Romeo Jader, who was misled by his university, the University of the East (UE), into believing that he had satisfied all the requirements for graduation when he had not. The Court ruled that UE is liable for actual damages since it failed to timely inform Jader of his academic status in good faith, as required by Article 19 of the Civil Code, misleading him and preventing him from taking the bar exam. However, UE is not liable for moral damages since Jader should have verified his own academic requirements and cannot claim to be shocked that he could not graduate or take the bar exam.

Uploaded by

Tea Ann
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
239 views1 page

DIGEST - UE Vs Jader

UE vs. Jader is a 2000 Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding a law student, Romeo Jader, who was misled by his university, the University of the East (UE), into believing that he had satisfied all the requirements for graduation when he had not. The Court ruled that UE is liable for actual damages since it failed to timely inform Jader of his academic status in good faith, as required by Article 19 of the Civil Code, misleading him and preventing him from taking the bar exam. However, UE is not liable for moral damages since Jader should have verified his own academic requirements and cannot claim to be shocked that he could not graduate or take the bar exam.

Uploaded by

Tea Ann
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

UE vs.

Jader
327 SCRA 804
February 17, 2000

Topic: Civil Law – Human Relations – Article 19 of the Civil Code

Facts:
Romeo Jader was a graduating law student at the University of the East. He failed
to take the regular examination in Practice Court 1 for which he was given an
INC. He enrolled for the second semester as a fourth year student, and filed an
application for the removal of the INC grade which was approved by the Dean.

Jader’s name appeared on the tentative list of candidates of graduation. He also


attended the investiture ceremonies. Thereafter, he prepared for the bar
examination and took review classes.

However, he was not able to take the 1988 bar examinations because his
academic requirements were not complete. It appears that his INC rating was not
removed.

He sued UE for damages alleging that he suffered moral shock, besmirched


reputation, wounded feelings, and sleepless nights, when he was not able to take
the 1988 bar examinations arising from the UE’s negligence. He prayed for an
award of moral damages, unrealized income, attorney’s fees, and cost of suit.

Issue: 
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
really did not?

Ruling: Yes.
UE is liable for actual 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. Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of
their academic status and not wait for the latter to inquire from the former.

In doing this obligation, UE must do so in good faith as provided for by Article


19 of the Civil Code, the principle of abuse of rights. Here, it was too late in the
day for UE to inform Jader that he failed a subject. Jader already celebrated his
graduation and had made preparations for the bar. The school cannot be said to
have acted in good faith. In belatedly informing Jader, particularly at a time when
he had already commenced preparing for the bar exams, UE cannot be said to
have acted in good faith. This makes UE liable for actual damages.

But UE is not liable for moral damages. Jader could not have 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 Jader to
verify for himself whether he has completed all necessary requirements to be
eligible for the bar examinations. As a senior law student, Jader should have been
responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs, specifically those pertaining to
his academic achievement, are in order.

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