#26 REGINO VS.
PANGASINAN COLLEGES
G.R. No. 156109 | Panganiban, J. | November 18, 2004
Quasi-delictual liability may arise even where there is an existing contractual relationship.
DOCTRINE: Generally, liability for tort arises only between parties not otherwise bound by a contract. An academic
institution, however, may be held liable for tort even if it has an existing contract with its students, since the act that
violated the contract may also be a tort.
FACTS:
Petitioner Khristine Rea M. Regino was a 1st year computer science student at Respondent Pangasinan
Colleges of Science and Technology (PCST). She went to college mainly through the financial support of her relatives.
During the second semester of school year 2001-2002, she enrolled in logic and statistics subjects under Respondents
Gamurot and Baladad, respectively, as teachers. "Rave Party and Dance Revolution” was a fund-raising campaign held
by PCST in February of 2002. Its proceeds were to go to the construction of the school's tennis and volleyball courts.
Each student was required to pay for two tickets at the price of P100 each. The project was allegedly implemented by
recompensing students who purchased tickets with additional points in their test scores; those who refused to pay were
denied the opportunity to take the final examinations. Because of financial incapability and the prohibition of her religion
to attend dance parties and celebrations, petitioner refused to pay for the tickets. On the day of the final examinations,
her teachers -- respondents Gamurot and Baladad -- allegedly disallowed her from taking the tests for failing to pay for
the tickets. Petitioner's pleas ostensibly went unheeded by Gamurot and Baladad, who unrelentingly defended their
positions as compliance with PCST's policy. Petitioner filed a complaint for damages against PCST, Gamurot, and
Baladad. RTC dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action. It ruled that the controversy involved a higher
institution of learning, two of its faculty members and one of its students. Section 54 of the Education Act of 1982 vested
in the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) the supervision and regulation of tertiary schools. Thus, it ruled that
the CHED, not the courts, had jurisdiction over the controversy. However, the order did not explain the ground for
dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of action.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the refusal of the University to allow her to take the exams is valid.
HELD:
No. The relationship between the school and the student is contractual in nature. The school-student
relationship is also reciprocal. Thus, it has consequences appurtenant to and inherent in all contracts of such kind -- it
gives rise to bilateral or reciprocal rights and obligations. The school undertakes 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 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 every
school year. Further, schools inform prospective enrollees the amount of fees and the terms of payment. Students are
normally required to make a down payment upon enrollment, with the balance to be paid before every preliminary,
midterm and final examination. Their failure to pay their financial obligation is regarded as a valid ground for the school
to deny them the opportunity to take these examinations. The foregoing practice does not merely ensure compliance
with financial obligations; it also underlines the importance of major examinations. Failure to take a major examination
is usually fatal to the students' promotion to the next grade or to graduation. Examination results form a significant basis
for their final grades. These tests are usually a primary and an indispensable requisite to their elevation to the next
educational level and, ultimately, to their completion of a course. Thus, students expect that upon their payment of
tuition fees, satisfaction of the set academic standards, completion of academic requirements and observance of school
rules and regulations, the school would reward them by recognizing their "completion" of the course enrolled in. The
obligation on the part of the school as held in several cases, is that, barring any violation of the rules on the part of the
students, an institution of higher learning has a contractual obligation to afford its students a fair opportunity to complete
the course they seek to pursue. 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 students' 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. Generally, liability for tort arises only between parties not otherwise bound by a contract. An academic
institution, however, may be held liable for tort even if it has an existing contract with its students, since the act that
violated the contract may also be a tort. In PSBA vs. CA, the Court held that under Article 2176 of the Civil Code shows
that obligations arising from quasi-delicts or tort, also known as extra-contractual obligations, arise only between parties
not otherwise bound by contract, whether express or implied. However, this impression has not prevented the Court
from determining the existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract. In several cases, the Court ruled that when
a contractual relation exists the obligor may break the contract under such conditions that the same act which constitutes
a breach of the contract would have constituted the source of an extra-contractual obligation had no contract existed
between the parties.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby GRANTED, and the assailed Orders REVERSED.
