Contractual and extra contractual

This is a case involving fund raising activities in a school. One of the main issues in this case is whether the school can unilaterally impose such revenue raising measure on its students.

This is the case of Rina who came from a poor family. She was able to reach college as a first year computer science student in a Science and Technology School (PCST) mainly through the financial support of her relatives. During the second semester of the school year 2001-2002, she was enrolled in logic and statistics at PCST.

In the second week of February 2002, PCST held a fund raising campaign dubbed as the "Rave Party and Dance Revolution", the proceeds of which were to go to the construction of the school’s tennis and volleyball courts. Every student was required to pay for two tickets at the price of P100 each. To ensure the compliance, only students who pay would be allowed to take the final examinations. Their teacher in logic, Ms. Gomez also promised additional points in the test scores of students who purchased tickets.

Financially strapped and prohibited by her religion from attending such dance parties and celebrations, Rina failed and refused to pay for the two tickets. Thus on the scheduled date of her examination in the subject of Logic on March 14, 2002, her teacher Ms. Gomez made her sit out her logic class while her classmates were taking the examination. Then the next day, March 15, 2002, her teacher in Statistics Ms. Bautista ejected Rina and another student from the classroom after announcing to the entire class that she was not permitting them to take the examinations. Rina’s pleas to both Ms. Gomez and Ms. Bautista went unheeded who unrelentingly defended their positions as compliance with PCST’s policy.

So, on April 25, 2002, Rina, as pauper litigant, sued PCST, Gomez and Bautista before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to recover P500,000 nominal damages; P500,000 moral damages, at least P1,000 exemplary damages; P250,000 actual damages plus cost of litigation and attorney’s fees. She alleged in her complaint what happened to her and based her cause of action on the Human Relations provision of the Civil Code specifically Articles 19, 20, 21 and 26 for the loss or injury she suffered on account of the inhuman manner she was treated when she was denied the examinations. But upon motion of PCST, Gomez and Bautista, the RTC dismissed her complaint for ‘lack of cause of action" without however explaining this ground. Was the RTC correct?

No. The complaint shows two causes of action: first, breach of contract and second, liability for tort.

There is a contractual relationship between the school and the students for the entire period the latter are expected to complete it. This relationship gives rise to bilateral or reciprocal rights and obligations. The school undertakes to afford its students a fair opportunity to complete the course they seek to pursue and 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. The school-student contract is imbued with public interest considering the high priority given by the Constitution to education and the grant to the State of supervisory and regulatory powers over all educational institutions (Sections 5[1] and [3] Article XIV).

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 the school year. Further, schools inform prospective enrollees the amount of fees and the terms of payment. Consequently, it cannot, after enrolment of a student vary the terms of the contract. It cannot require fees other than those it specified upon enrolment. Thus students expect that upon their payment of tuition fees, satisfaction of the set academic standards, completion of academic requirements and observance of rules and regulations, the school would reward them by recognizing their "completion" of the course enrolled in. In this case, PCST imposed the assailed revenue raising measure belatedly, in the middle of the semester. It exacted the dance party fee as a condition for the student’s taking the final examinations, and ultimately for its recognition of their ability to finish a course. The fee, however was not part of the school-student contract entered into at the start of the school year. Hence, it could not be unilaterally imposed to the prejudice of the enrollees.

The complaint also charged that PCST, Gomez and Bautista inhumanly punish students by reason only of their poverty, religious practice or lowly station in life as a result of which she was unable to finish any of her subjects for the second semester and had to lag behind in her studies by a full year. These acts may also be tortious. An academic institution may also be held liable for tort even if it has an existing contract with its students because the act that breaks the contract may also be a tort. The complaint should not therefore be dismissed but should be heard on the merits with deliberate dispatch (Regino vs. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology et. al. G.R. 156109, November 18, 2004).

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]