UST, et. al vs. Danes B. Sanchez

G.R. No. 165569, July 29, 2010 

A Complaint for  Damages filed by respondent Danes B. Sanchez (respondent) against the University of Santo Tomas (UST) and its Board of Directors, the Dean and the Assistant Dean of the UST College of Nursing, and the University Registrar for their alleged unjustified refusal to release the respondents Transcript of Records (ToR). 

In his Complaint, respondent alleged that he graduated from UST on April 2, 2002 with a Bachelors Degree of Science in Nursing. He was included in the list of candidates for graduation and attended graduation ceremonies. Respondent sought to secure a copy of his ToR with the UST Registrars Office, paid the required fees, but was only given a Certificate of Graduation by the Registrar. Despite repeated attempts by the respondent to secure a copy of his ToR, and submission of his class cards as proof of his enrolment, UST refused to release his records, making it impossible for him to take the nursing board examinations, and depriving him of the opportunity to make a living. The respondent prayed that the RTC order UST to release his ToR and hold UST liable for actual, moral, and exemplary damages, attorneys fees, and the costs of suit.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss where they claimed that they refused to release respondents ToR because he was not a registered student, since he had not been enrolled in the university for the last three semesters. They claimed that the respondents graduation, attendance in classes, and taking/passing of examinations were immaterial because he ceased to be a student when he failed to enroll during the second semester of school year 2000-2001.

Petitioners then filed a Supplement to their Motion to Dismiss, alleging that respondent sought administrative recourse before the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) through a letter-complaint. Petitioners claimed that the CHED had primary jurisdiction to resolve matters pertaining to school controversies.

Issues:

1)           The CHED exercises quasi-judicial power over controversies involving school matters and has primary jurisdiction over respondents demand for the release of his ToR. Thus, respondent failed to exhaust administrative remedies;

 2)           Since respondent sought recourse with both the CHED and the RTC, respondent violated the rule against forum-shopping; and

 3)           The Complaint failed to state a cause of action, since respondent admitted that he was not enrolled in UST in the last three semesters prior to graduation.

Held:

1.   1.   The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that where a remedy before an administrative agency is provided, the administrative agency concerned must be given the opportunity to decide a matter within its jurisdiction before an action is brought before the courts. Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a ground for dismissal of the action.

In this case, the doctrine does not apply because petitioners failed to demonstrate that recourse to the CHED is mandatory or even possible in an action such as that brought by the respondent, which is essentially one for mandamus and damages. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies admits of numerous exceptions, one of which is where the issues are purely legal and well within the jurisdiction of the trial court, as in the present case. Petitioners liability if any for damages will have to be decided by the courts, since any judgment inevitably calls for the application and the interpretation of the Civil Code. As such, exhaustion of administrative remedies may be dispensed with. The Supreme Court held in Regino v. Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology

x x x exhaustion of administrative remedies is applicable when there is competence on the part of the administrative body to act upon the matter complained of .Administrative agencies are not courts; x x x neither [are they] part of the judicial system, [or] deemed judicial tribunals. Specifically, the CHED does not have the power to award damages. Hence, petitioner could not have commenced her case before the Commission. 

In addition, the rule on primary jurisdiction applies only where the administrative agency exercises quasi-judicial or adjudicatory functions. Thus, an essential requisite for this doctrine to apply is the actual existence of quasi-judicial power. However, petitioners have not shown that the CHED possesses any such power to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. Indeed, Section 8 of Republic Act No. 7722 otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994, certainly does not contain any express grant to the CHED of judicial or quasi-judicial power.

2.   2.   Forum shopping exists when, as a result of an adverse opinion in one forum, a party seeks a favorable opinion (other than by appeal or certiorari) in another, or when he institutes two or more actions or proceedings grounded on the same cause, on the gamble that one or the other court would make a favorable disposition. Here, there can be no forum shopping precisely because the CHED is without quasi-judicial power, and cannot make any disposition of the case whether favorable or otherwise. 

3.3.      Under Rule 16, Section 1(g) of the Rules of Court, a motion to dismiss may be made on the ground that the pleading asserting the claim states no cause of action. To clarify the essential test required to sustain dismissal on this ground, we have explained that the test of the sufficiency of the facts found in a petition, to constitute a cause of action, is whether admitting the facts alleged, the court could render a valid judgment upon the same in accordance with the prayer of the petition. Stated otherwise, a complaint is said to assert a sufficient cause of action if, admitting what appears solely on its face to be correct, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief prayed for.

The Complaint makes the following essential allegations: that petitioners unjustifiably refused to release respondents ToR despite his having obtained a degree from UST; that petitioners claim that respondent was not officially enrolled is untrue; that as a result of petitioners unlawful actions, respondent has not been able to take the nursing board exams since 2002; that petitioners actions violated Articles 19-21 of the Civil Code; and that petitioners should be ordered to release respondents ToR and held liable for P400,000.00 as moral damages,P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, P50,000.00 as attorneys fees and costs of suit, and P15,000.00 as actual damages. Clearly, assuming that the facts alleged in the Complaint are true, the RTC would be able to render a valid judgment in accordance with the prayer in the Complaint.