FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 79237 October 18, 1988

UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS
-versus-
COURT OF APPEALS
GANCAYCO, J.:
The principal issue raised in this petition is whether or not mandamus is the proper remedy to compel a university to
confer a degree with honors The secondary !uestion is whether or not the refusal of that university to confer honors
would constitute "ad faith so as to ma#e it lia"le for damages
$rivate respondent %ennifer & 'ee filed an action for mandamus with damages against petitioners (niversity of San
&arlos and Victoria ) Satorre* doc#eted as &ivil &ase No R++,++ in the Regional Trial &ourt* -ranch .VIII*
&e"u* as#ing that petitioners "e compelled to confer upon her the degree of -achelor of Science in &ommerce*
ma/or in )ccounting* cum laude* retroactive to 0arch +1* 231+* to e4ecute and deliver to her all necessary
credentials evidencing her graduation with honors* and to pay her moral damages in the amount of $5,,*,,,,,*
e4emplary damages in the amount of $6,*,,,,,* and attorney7s fees in the amount of $+,*,,,,,
)fter trial* the lower court rendered its Decision dated %anuary +3* 2318*
1
the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows9
:;<R<FOR<* /udgment is here"y rendered in favor of plaintiff* and accordingly* defendants
(niversity of San &arlos and Dean Victoria ) Satorre are ordered to confer upon plaintiff*
%ennifer & 'ee* the degree of -achelor of Science in &ommerce* ma/or in accounting* with cum
laude honors =sic>* retroactive to 0arch +1* 231+* and to e4ecute and deliver to plaintiff all the
necessary school credentials evidencing her graduation with such honors? and said defendants are
ordered to pay plaintiff /ointly and severally the sum of $@6*,,, as moral damages* the sum of
$+,*,,, as e4emplary damages* with interest thereon at 2+A per annum "eginning %uly ++* 231+*
until said amounts are fully paid9 and the sum of $26*,,, as attorney7s fees The counterclaim is
ordered dismissed &osts against defendants
2
$etitioners appealed to the respondent &ourt of )ppeals where the case was doc#eted as &)-BR No S$-,3581 In
a decision dated 0ay +1* 231@* the appellate court affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court
3
The motion for reconsideration filed "y petitioners was denied in a Resolution of the appellate court dated %uly @*
231@

;ence* this petition where petitioners allege as grounds thereof-

=a> ) university may not "e compelled "y mandamus to grant graduation honors to any student
who* according to the university7s standards* rules and regulations* does not !ualify for such
honors? and
="> The decision penaliCing petitioners to pay e4cessive moral and e4emplary damages and
attorney7s fees is not /ustified "y the facts and circumstances of this case and disregards the many
decisions of this ;onora"le &ourt setting reasona"le standards and limits in the award of such
damages =$ +* petition? p 2+* rollo>
$rivate respondent enrolled in the &ollege of )rchitecture* (niversity of San &arlos =(S&>* during the first semester
of school year 23@1-@3 )t the end of the second semester of that school year* she o"tained a grade of DI&D
=Incomplete> in )rchitecture 2+2* and grades of D67sD =failures> in )rchitecture 2++ and )rchitecture 2+5
The following school year* 23@3-231,* she shifted to the &ollege of &ommerce of the (S& Some of the units she
had completed when she was still an architecture student were then carried over and credited in her new course )s a
commerce student* she o"tained good grades ;owever* she was aware of her earlier failing grades in the &ollege of
)rchitecture and that the same would "e ta#en into consideration in the evaluation of her overall academic
performance to determine if she could graduate with honors
So* on Decem"er 2,* 2312* she wrote
!
the &ouncil of Deans of the (S&* re!uesting that her grades of 6s in
)rchitecture 2+2 and )rchitecture 2++ "e disregarded in the computation of her grade average She wrote a similar
letter to the 0inistry of <ducation* &ulture and Sports 0<&S in Region VII on %anuary 6* 231+
"
and this letter was
referred to the $resident of the (S& for comment and return to the 0<&S
In the 5rd Indorsement dated Fe"ruary E* 231+* the $resident of the (S& informed the 0<&S that the university
policy was that any failing grade o"tained "y a student in any course would dis!ualify the student for honors? that to
deviate from that policy would mean in/ustice to students similarly situated "efore who were not allowed to graduate
with honors? that the "ad grades given to her were /ustified and could not "e deleted or removed "ecause her
su"/ects were not DdroppedD as re!uired? that she had two failures and one incomplete grade which "ecame a failure
upon her inaction to attend to the incomplete grade within one year? and that while her three failures did not affect
her graduation from the &ollege of &ommerce* they nonetheless caused her dis!ualification from graduating with
honors She was furnished a copy of said indorsement "ut she did not as# for a reconsideration
On 0arch 2@* 231+* when the (S& $resident was out of town* private respondent wrote to the (S& Registrar7
re!uesting that her failing grades "e changed The (S& Registrar
7
referred her letter to the 0<&S and the re!uest
for change of grades was approved in a Eth indorsement of 0arch ++* 231+
8
Thus* her grade of I& in )rchitecture
2+2 was changed to D23D "y $rofessor Victor 'eves %r and the grades of D6D in )rchitecture 2++ and )rchitecture
2+5 were changed to D:D =:ithdrawn>
On 0arch +E* 231+* 0r 0arcelo -acalso of 0<&S7 ;igher <ducation Division discovered that the change of the
grade of private respondent from DI&D to D23D did not have the supporting class record re!uired* so he wrote to
0<&S Supervisor 0r OrtiC re!uesting the su"mission of the class record
9
On 0arch +1* 231+* the (S& held its graduation e4ercises* and the private respondent graduated with the degree of
-achelor of Science in &ommerce* ma/or in )ccounting* without honors
On 0arch 52* 231+* the private respondent* assisted "y counsel* demanded from Dean Victoria ) Satorre that she
"e allowed to graduate* cum laude
1#
Dean Satorre e4plained that the matter was held in a"eyance pending
compliance with certain re!uirements of the 0<&S through the memo of 0r -acalso
11
On 0ay +E* 231+* )rch 'eves %r* the teacher re!uired to produce the class records* reported he could not produce
the same
12
Thus* on 0ay +@* 231+* Dean Satorre wrote to the 0<&S Regional Director )urelio Tiro as#ing for the
revocation of the change of grades of private respondent
13
The re!uest was denied as there was no positive proof of
fraud
1
It is an accepted principle that schools of teaming are given ample discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in the
granting of honors for purposes of graduation This is part of academic freedom :ithin the parameters of these
rules* it is within the competence of universities and colleges to determine who are entitled to the grant of honors
among the graduating students Its discretion on this academic matter may not "e distur"ed much less controlled "y
the courts unless there is grave a"use of discretion in its e4ercise
In this case* the petitioner7s "ulletin of information provides all students and all other interested parties advise on the
(niversity policies and rules on enrollment and academic achievements Therein it is provided* among others* that a
student may not officially withdraw from su"/ects in the curriculum if he does not have the written permission of his
parents or guardian
1!
For an incomplete grade* there must "e an application for completion or removal within the
period announced "y the school calendar and when not removed within one =2> year* it automatically "ecomes
final
1"
) DDRD =Dropped> su"/ect which is in the same category* as a D6D dis!ualifies a student from receiving
honors
17
) candidate for honors should have earned no less than 21 units per semester "ut a wor#ing student should
earn no less that 2+ units ) failure in any su"/ect dis!ualifies a student from honors
18
Bood moral character and
e4emplary conduct are as important criteria for honors as academic achievements
19
$rivate respondent should #now and is presumed to #now those (niversity policies and is "ound to comply
therewith
It is precisely "ecause she #new of these rules that she e4erted all efforts to have her final grades of D67sD in
)rchitecture 2++ and )rchitecture 2+5 "e disregarded in the computation of honors :hen her re!uest was denied
"y the university* she did not as# for a reconsideration thereof Instead* in the middle part of 0arch 231+ when the
(S& $resident was out of town* she wrote another letter to the (S& registrar as#ing her failing grades "e changed as
a"ove related The matter was referred to the 0<&S and the re!uest was approved on 0arch ++*231+
;owever* when it was discovered thereafter that the change of private respondent7s grades from DI&D TO D23D was
not supported "y the corresponding class records and its production was re!uired the same could not "e produced
There is thus no /ustification for said change of grade 0oreover* the re!uest for the change of the grade of
incomplete was not made "y private respondent within one =2> year so that it "ecame final according to the rules
-y the same to#en* the change of the grades of private respondent from D6D to D:D =:ithdrawn> in )rchitecture 2++
and )rchitecture 2+5 was without the written permission of her parents or guardian Indeed* it is unusual that a
student who got a D6D in a su"/ect* as in this case* should still "e allowed to withdraw from such su"/ect :ithdrawal
from su"/ects is not ordinarily allowed after mid-term e4amination
2#
much less after a failing grade in the su"/ect
has "een received
The change of grades of private respondent is thus open to !uestion O"viously* private respondent employed undue
and improper pressure on the 0<&S authorities to approve the change of her grades to remove all o"stacle to her
graduation with honors $etitioners7 claim that the change of grades of the private respondent was attended with
fraud is not entirely misplaced $etitioners cannot "e faulted for refusing to vest the honors demanded of them "y the
private respondent One failure would have "een sufficient to dis!ualify her "ut she had one incomplete and two
failures ;er only change was to reverse her failing grades This she accomplished thru the "ac# door
Nevertheless* even if she succeeded in removing her failing grades* it was still within the sound discretion of the
petitioners to determine whether private respondent was entitled to graduate with honors The &ourt finds that
petitioners did not commit a grave a"use of discretion in denying the honors sought "y private respondent under the
circumstances Indeed* the aforesaid change of grades did not automatically entitle her to the award of honors
$rivate respondent not having demonstrated that she has a clear legal right to the honors sought* her claim for
damages must necessarily fail
:;<R<FOR<* the petition is BR)NT<D and the su"/ect decision of the respondent court of 0ay +1* 231@ and its
resolution of %uly @* 231@* are here"y R<V<RS<D and S<T )SID< and another /udgment is here"y rendered
DIS0ISSINB the complaint without pronouncement as to costs
SO ORD<R<D
Narvasa, Cruz, Grio-Aquino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.