Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The next day, the teacher announced to the whole class that
khristine and another student was not permitted to take the
exam because of the failure to buy the tickets then
subsequently ejected the two from class.
Khristine continued to plead with the teachers to allow her
but they kept their stand and defended their position saying
that they were complying with PCSTs policy.
Khristine filed in the RTC as a pauper litigant against PCST
and her two teachers for damages.
The respondents filed a motion to dismiss based on the
khristines failure to exhaust administrative remedies as
they are contending that the case shouldve been filed in
the CHED (commission of higher education) and not in the
RTC
Khristine on the other hand says that prior exhaustion of
administrative remedies was unnecessary, because her
action was not administrative in nature, but one purely for
damages arising from respondents breach of the laws on
human relations
RTC
o The RTC dismissed the complaint for the lack of cause of
action. It said that considering the case was between a
school, two teachers and a student, CHED has
jurisdiction over the case and not RTC. And it dismissed
the case for the lack of cause of action without
explaining their ground.
ISSUE/s:
1. W/N the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is applicable
2. W/N the Complaint stated sufficient cause(s) of action.
HELD:
1. Yes
The Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies has no bearing on the present case
because the petitioner was not asking for the reversal of the
policies of the PCST neither was she demanding that the school
allow her to take the final examinations (considering that she
was already enrolled in a different school). The acts of the
respondent can no longer be reversed and even if it was
reversed, it would not be adequate to redress her grievances
The Supreme Court also held that the doctrine can only
be applied when there is competence on the part of the
administrative body to act upon the matter complained of. Thus
in the case at bar, the CHED does not have the power to award
damages to the petitioner.
And lastly, the doctrine cannot be applied when the issue
is purely legal and well within the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The petitioners action for damages calls for the application of
the Civil Code which falls within the jurisdiction of the courts.
2. Yes
a. Breach of Action
In the case of Alcuaz v. PSBA, the court characterized the
relationship between the school and the student as a contract,
where the student, once admitted by the school is considered
enrolled for one semester. And in a succeeding case (Non v.
Dames), the court ruled that it is not merely for one semester
but an entire period that the student is expected to complete it.
Thus it can be seen that when it comes to the court, the
relationship between the school and the student is contractual
in nature.
Being that the relationship is reciprocal, where the school
would be providing the education while the student will be
abiding by the rules and regulations of the school. The terms of
the contract are defined at the moment of its inception- upon
enrollment of the student. Thus it is in practice that the student
makes a down payment at the beginning of the semester and
succeeding payments 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.
In the present case, the PCST imposed a revenue raising
measure in the middle of the semester. It made the financial
contribution of the student as a condition for the students to
take their final examinations which ultimately is translated to
the recognition of their ability to finish the course. Considering
that the fee was not part of the student-school contract entered
into at the start of the year, it cannot be unilaterally imposed to
the prejudice of the enrollees.
It should be noted that the student-school contract is not
an ordinary one and is imbued with public interest considering
that it is protected by the constitution and by a legislative act
called the Education Act of 1982.
b. Liability for Tort