Final Exam

Law Related Studies in Education

Name:_______________________________Course/Year:________________Date/Year:_________ Answer the question after each case. Observe the correct grammar and write your justifications in an orderly and deductive manner. Write your answers at the back pages.

I. Romeo Jader, a law student of the University of the East, failed to take his regular examination in
Practice Court I in his first semester of his last school year. However, he was able to remove the incomplete mark when the Dean of his college approved his application to take a removal examination. In the 2nd semester, his name appeared in the tentative list of candidates for graduation for the Decree of Bachelor of Laws and in the invitation for the 35th Investiture and Commencement Ceremonies, the plaintiffs name appeared. Thus, he attended the investiture ceremonies and graduated. On April to September 1998, he took a leave of absence from his work and enrolled at the pre-bar review class in Far Eastern University. To his dismay upon knowing that he incurred a deficiency, he dropped his review class and was not able to take the bar examinations. He then filed a suit against UE praying for moral and exemplary damages arising from the latters negligence. The trial court ruled in his favor and was granted for actual damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision with modification. The CA awarded moral damages. On account of suffering moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and sleepless nights and ultimately for not having to take the bar exam. Question: Is the claim for damages of Romeo Jader valid? Write your answer in not more than 7 sentences.

II. Some 800 public school teachers undertook mass concerted actions to protest the alleged failure
of public authorities to act upon their grievances. The mass actions consisted in staying away from their classes, converging at the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peacable assemblies, etc. The Secretary of Education served them with an order to return to work within 24 hours or face dismissal. For failure to heed the return-to-work order, eight teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School were administratively charged, preventively suspended for 90 days pursuant to sec. 41, P.D. 807 and temporarily replaced. An investigation committee was consequently formed to hear the charges. When their motion for suspension was denied by the Investigating Committee, said teachers staged a walkout signifying their intent to boycott the entire proceedings. Eventually, Secretary Carino decreed dismissal from service of Esber and the suspension for 9 months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo. In the meantime, a case was filed with RTC, raising the issue of violation of the right of the striking teachers to due process of law. The case was eventually elevated to SC. Also in the meantime, the respondent teachers submitted sworn statements to Commission on Human Rights to complain that while they were participating in peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of their replacement as teachers, allegedly without notice and consequently for reasons completely unknown to them. While the case was pending with CHR, SC promulgated its resolution over the cases filed with it earlier, upholding the Sec. Carinos act of issuing the return-to-work orders. Despite this, CHR continued hearing its case and held that the striking teachers were denied due process of law;they should not h ave been replaced without a chance to reply to the administrative charges; there had been violation of their civil and political rights which the Commission is empowered to investigate. Questions: 1. Was the CHR correct in deciding about the case? Explain your answer in not more than 7 sentences. 2. Should the teachers follow the order of the Secretary of Education over the order of the CHR?

III. In 1989, DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints about teachers and pupils belonging to
the Jehovahs Witness, and enrolled in various public and private schools, which refused to sing the Phil. National Anthem, salute the flag and recite the patriotic pledge. Division Superintendent of schools, Susana B. Cabahug of the Cebu Division of DECS and her Assistant issued Division Memorandum No. 108, dated Nov. 17, 1989, directing District Supervisors, High School Principals and Heads of Private Educational institutions to remove from service, after due process, teachers and school employees, and to deprive the students and pupils from the benefit of public education, if they do not participate in daily flag ceremony and doesnt obey flag salute rule.

Members of the Jehovahs Witness sect find such memorandum to be c ontrary to their religious belief and choose not to obey. Despite a number of appropriate persuasions made by the Cebu officials to let them obey the directives, still they opted to follow their conviction to their belief. As a result, an order was issued by the district supervisor of Daan Bantayan District of Cebu, dated July 24, 1990, ordering the dropping from the list in the school register of all Jehovahs Witness teachers and pupils from Grade 1 to Grade 6 who opted to follow their belief which is against the Flag Salute Law, however, given a chance to be re-accepted if they change their mind. Some Jehovahs Witness members appealed to the Secretary of Education but the latter did not answer to their letter. On Oct. 31, 1990, students and their parents filed special civil actions for Mandamus, Certiorari and prohibition, alleging that the respondents acted without or in excess of their jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion in ordering their expulsion without prior notice and hearing, hence, in violation of their right to due process, their right to free public education and their right to freedom of speech, religion and worship. Petitioners prayed for the voiding of the order of expulsion or dropping from the rolls issued by the District Supervisor; prohibiting and enjoining respondent from barring them from classes; and compelling the respondent and all persons acting for him to admit and order their(Petitioners) readmission I their respective schools. On November 27, 1990, Court issued a TRO and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, commanding the respondents to immediately re-admit the petitioners to their respective classes until further orders. On May 31, the Solicitor General filed a consolidated comment to the petitions defending the expulsion orders issued by the respondents. Petitioners stressed that while they do not take part in the compulsory flag ceremony, they do not engage in external acts or behavior that would offend their countrymen who believe in expressing their love of country through observance of the flag ceremony. They quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony to show their respect for the right of those who choose to participate in the solemn proceedings. Since they do not engage in disruptive behavior, there is no warrant for their expulsion. Questions: 1. Were the Jehovas Witnesses correct in their argument? Explain your answer in not more than 7 sentences. 2. Was the expulsion of the students and teachers from the school proper? Explain your answer in not more than 7 sentences.

IV. Before the school year 1948-1949 Emeterio Cui took up preparatory law course in the Arellano
University. After Finishing his preparatory law course plaintiff enrolled in the College of Law of the defendant from school year 1948-1949. Plaintiff finished his law studies in the defendant university up to and including the first semester of the fourt year. During all the school years in which plaintiff was studying law in defendant law college, Francisco R. Capistrano, brother of mother of plaintiff, was the dean of college of law and legal counsel of the defendant university. Plaintiff enrolled for last semester of his law studies in the defendant university but failed to pay tuition fees because his uncle Dean Francisco R. Capistrano, having severed his connection with defendant and having accepted the deanship and chancellorship of the college of law of the Abad Santos University graduating from the college of law of the latter university. Plaintiff, during all the time he has studying law in Defendant University was awarded scholarship grants, for scholastic merit, so that his semestral tuition fees were retured to him after the end of semester and when his scholarship grants were awarded to him. The whole amount of tuition fess paid by the plaintiff to defendant and refunded to him by the latter from the first semester up to and including the first semester of his last year in college of law or the fourth year, is in total P1,003.87. After Graduating in law from Abad Santos University he applied to take the bar examination. To secure permission to take the bar, he needed the transcript of his records in defendant Arellano University. Plaintiff petitioned the latter to issue to him the needed transcripts. The defendant refused until after he paid back the P1,003.87 which defendant refunded him. As he could not take the bar examination without those transcripts, plaintiff paid to defendant the said sum under protest.

Question: Are the provisions of the contract between Cui and Arellano University, whereby the former waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding to the latter the equivalent of his scholarship in cash, valid? Explain your answer in not more than 7 sentences.