You are on page 1of 2

[G.R. No. L-15127. May 30, 1961.

] of the student to transfer is being denied on this ground, it reserves the right to authorize
EMETERIO CUI, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY, defendant-appellee. such transfer.
Defendant herein received a copy of this memorandum, and plaintiff asked the Bureau of
FACTS Private Schools to pass upon the issue on his right to secure the transcript of his record in
Plaintiff Emeterio Cui finished his preparatory law course and his law studies in the defendant University, without being required to refund the sum of P1,033.87. The Bureau
defendant university up to and including the first semester of the fourth year. During all of Private Schools upheld the position taken by the plaintiff and so advised the defendant.
the school years in which plaintiff was studying law, Francisco R. Capistrano, brother of This notwithstanding, the latter refused to issue said transcript of record, unless said
the mother of plaintiff, was the dean of the College of Law and legal counsel of the refund were made, and even recommended to said Bureau that it issue a written order
defendant university. Plaintiff enrolled for the last semester of his law studies in the directing the defendant to release said transcript of record, "so that the case may be
defendant university but failed to pay his tuition fees, because his uncle Dean Capistrano presented to the court for judicial action". As above stated, plaintiff was, accordingly,
having severed his connection with defendant and having accepted the deanship and constrained to pay, and did pay under protest, said sum of P1,033.87, in order that he
chancellorship of the College of Law of Abad Santos University, plaintiff left the could take the bar examinations in 1953. Subsequently, he brought this action for the
defendant's law college and enrolled for the last semester of his fourth year law in the recovery of said amount, aside from P2,000 as moral damages, P500 as exemplary
College of Law of the Abad Santos University graduating from the latter university. damages, P2,000 as attorney's fees, and P500 as expenses of litigation.

Plaintiff, during all the time he was studying law in defendant university was awarded In its answer, defendant reiterated the stand it took vis-a-vis the Bureau of Private
scholarship grants, for scholastic merit, so that his semestral tuition fees were returned to Schools, namely, that the provisions of its contract with plaintiff are valid and binding, and
him after the ends of semesters and when his scholarship grants were awarded to him. that the memorandum above-referred to is null and void. It, likewise, set up a
The whole amount of tuition fees paid by plaintiff to defendant and refunded to him by counterclaim for P10,000.00 as damages, and P3,000 as attorney's fees.
the latter from the first semester up to and including the first semester of his last year in
the college of law or the fourth year, is in total P1,033.87. ISSUE
Whether the above quoted provision of the contract between plaintiff and the defendant
After graduating in law from Abad Santos University, he applied to take the bar whereby the former waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding to
examination. Plaintiff petitioned the defendant to issue to him the needed transcripts to the latter the equivalent of his scholarships in cash, is valid or not.
secure permission to take the bar. The defendant refused until after he had paid back the
P1,033.87 which defendant refunded to him as above stated. Plaintiff paid to defendant RULING
under protest. This is the sum which plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant. The lower court resolved this question in the affirmative, upon the ground that the
aforementioned memorandum of the Director of Private Schools is not a law; that the
Before defendant awarded to plaintiff the scholarship grants as above stated, he was provisions thereof are advisory, not mandatory in nature; and that, although the
made to sign the following contract, covenant and agreement: “In consideration of the contractual provision "may be unethical, yet it was more unethical for plaintiff to quit
scholarship granted to me by the University, I hereby waive my right to transfer to another studying with the defendant without good reasons and simply because he wanted to
school without having refunded to the University (defendant) the equivalent of my follow the example of his uncle". Moreover, defendant maintains in its brief that the
scholarship cash.” aforementioned memorandum of the Director of Private Schools is null and void because
said officer had no authority to issue it, and because it had been neither approved by the
It is admitted that, on August 16, 1949, the Director of Private Schools issued corresponding department head nor published in the official gazette.
Memorandum No. 38, series of 1949, on the subject of "Scholarships", addressed to "All
heads of private schools, colleges and universities." One of the concerns of the We do not deem it necessary or advisable to consider, as the lower court did, the question
memorandum was that several complaints have actually been received from students whether plaintiff had sufficient reasons or not to transfer from defendant University to
who have enjoyed scholarships, full or partial, to the effect that they could not transfer to the Abad Santos University. The nature of the issue before us, and its far reaching effects,
other schools since their credentials would not be released unless they would pay the fees transcend personal equations and demand a determination of the case from a high
corresponding to the period of the scholarships. Where the Bureau believes that the right impersonal plane. Neither do we deem it essential to pass upon the validity of said

null and void. The aforesaid memorandum merely incorporates a sound principle of public policy. as well as the costs. . 1954. with interest thereon at the legal rate from September 1. and dismissing defendant's counterclaim. the decision appealed from is hereby reversed. So ordered. 38.87.Memorandum No. for. date of the institution of this case. and another one shall be entered sentencing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of P1. Wherefore. we are of the opinion that the stipulation in question is contrary to public policy and hence. regardless of the same.033.