University of the East vs.

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

Facts:
Romeo Jader, a former law student of the University of the East, filed a petition to the
trial court alleging the latter as the main reason for his failure to take the bar examination in
the concerned year due to deficiencies in his scholastic records. It was also alleged that the
university made him believe that he successfully finished all the necessary requirements for
graduation by including his name in the list of graduates in that school year and allowing him to
receive his diploma during the graduation ceremonies.
The case was affirmed by the lower court. It was appealed by the petitioner in the Court
of Appeals, however, the latter agreed with the lower court’s decision.
Unsatisfied with the decision, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether or not University of the East’s failure to communicate with the student his
scholastic standing was done in good faith.

Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court, speaking through J. Ynares-Santiago, stated that the petitioner
acted in bad faith which is a violation of Article 19 of the Civil Code which requires that in
exercising one’s right and/or performing one’s duties, good faith must be observed.
In the case at bar, the petitioner failed to act in good faith as evidenced by its negligence
to inform the respondent of his grade deficiency considering that the former has the only
authority and power to do such thing.
Garcia vs. Recio
G.R. No. 138322
October 2, 2001

Facts:
Rederick Recio, formerly a Filipino citizen, now naturalized Australian citizen, was
alleged of committing a crime of bigamy for remarrying Grace Garcia (petitioner) even when his
marriage with Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, was still in existence.
The petitioner filed with the lower court a petition for nullity of her marriage with the
respondent for marrying her without having the legal capacity to do such. To the defense of the
respondent, a divorce decree from the Australian family court was already issued to certify the
nullity of his first marriage.
Such document was admitted by the lower court as an evidence in the case and decided
favorably on the part of the petitioner based on the divorce decree.

Issue:
Whether or not the Australian divorce decree be an admissible evidence in the court
and be used as basis in determining legal capacity of Recio.

Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court, speaking through J. Panganiban, said that a foreign document
to be admissible, must first be alleged and proven in conformity with Rules 24 and 25 of Rule
132.
In the case at bar, the divorce decree was only presented without complying with the
rules as stated in the rules above. Therefore, it cannot be used as a basis in deciding the legal
capacity of the respondent to remarry.