Khristine Rea M. Regino v.

Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology,

Rachelle A. Gamurot, and Elissa Baladad

G.R. No. 156109, November 18, 2004

Ratio:

The Supreme Court held that the school-student relationship is a reciprocal

contractual obligation, formed upon enrollment. The school is bound to uphold the
terms of this contract, including the academic standards, disciplinary rules, and financial
obligations disclosed at the start of the school year. It cannot unilaterally impose new
conditions—such as additional fees for fundraising events—as prerequisites for
taking final examinations, especially when such fees were not part of the original
enrollment agreement.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not
required, as the action was not administrative in nature but a civil suit for
damages based on alleged violations of the Civil Code provisions on human relations
(Articles 19, 21, and 26). The imposition of the dance party fee mid-semester, and the
denial of exam access due to non-payment, constituted a breach of contract and
potentially a tortious act that violated the petitioner’s dignity and right to education.

Facts

Khristine Rea M. Regino, a financially disadvantaged first-year Computer Science

student at Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology (PCST), filed a complaint
for damages against the school and two of its faculty members, Rachelle A. Gamurot
and Elissa Baladad. During the second semester of school year 2001–2002, PCST
launched a fundraising campaign called the “Rave Party and Dance Revolution” to
finance the construction of sports facilities. Each student was required to purchase two
tickets worth ₱100 each. Allegedly, students who complied were rewarded with
additional points in their test scores, while those who refused were barred from taking
their final examinations.

Regino, citing financial hardship and religious beliefs that prohibited her from attending
dance parties, refused to buy the tickets. On the scheduled dates of the final exams—
March 14 and 15, 2002—she was allegedly barred from taking her Logic and Statistics
exams by her teachers, Gamurot and Baladad. Gamurot reportedly made her sit out the
Logic exam, while Baladad publicly announced in class that Regino and another student
could not take the Statistics exam due to non-payment, and then ejected them from the
classroom.
On April 25, 2002, Regino filed a complaint for damages as a pauper litigant, seeking
nominal, moral, exemplary, and actual damages, along with attorney’s fees.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Regino failed to exhaust
administrative remedies and that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Commission
on Higher Education (CHED), not the courts. Regino countered that her action was not
administrative in nature but a civil suit for damages arising from a breach of the laws on
human relations.

The Regional Trial Court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the controversy
involved an educational institution and its faculty, and thus fell under CHED’s jurisdiction
pursuant to Section 54 of the Education Act of 1982. The court dismissed the complaint
for lack of cause of action, without elaborating on that ground. Aggrieved, Regino
elevated the matter to a higher court, raising pure questions of law.

Issue:
"Whether or not the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) has exclusive original
jurisdiction over actions for damages based upon violation of the Civil Code provisions
on human relations filed by a student against the school."9
Ruling:

The Supreme Court has consistently recognized the school-student relationship as

contractual in nature, as established in Alcuaz v. PSBA and Non v. Dames II. This
contract is reciprocal, imposing mutual obligations: the school must provide education
and fair academic opportunities, while students must comply with academic standards
and institutional rules. The terms of this contract are defined at enrollment, including
tuition fees and examination schedules. While schools may validly deny exam access
for non-payment of disclosed fees, they cannot impose new financial conditions
mid-semester that were not part of the original agreement. In Regino v. PCST, the
school’s imposition of a dance party fee as a prerequisite for final exams was
deemed unilateral and prejudicial, violating the contractual expectations of students.

Beyond breach of contract, the petitioner alleged tortious conduct under Articles 19,
21, and 26 of the Civil Code, citing humiliation and discrimination based on poverty and
religious beliefs. The Court clarified that tort liability may arise even within a
contractual relationship, as the same act may constitute both breach and tort. This
principle was affirmed in cases like Air France v. Carrascoso and Cangco v. Manila
Railroad, where the breach of contract also gave rise to extra-contractual obligations.
Thus, PCST’s actions were not only a breach of the school-student contract but also
potentially actionable as a tortious violation of human dignity and good customs,
warranting civil liability.

Side notes:
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.

"Article 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith."

"Article 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner
that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the
latter for the damage."

"Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace
of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts,
though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of
action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;

(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of

another;

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his beliefs, lowly station in

life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition."

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. We
ruled thus in PSBA vs. CA,34 from which we quote:

"x x x A perusal of 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 this Court from determining the
existence of a tort even when there obtains a contract. In Air France v.
Carrascoso (124 Phil. 722), the private respondent was awarded damages for his
unwarranted expulsion from a first-class seat aboard the petitioner airline. It is
noted, however, that the Court referred to the petitioner-airline's liability as one
arising from tort, not one arising form a contract of carriage. In effect, Air France
is authority for the view that liability from tort may exist even if there is a contract,
for the act that breaks the contract may be also a tort. x x x This view was not all
that revolutionary, for even as early as 1918, this Court was already of a similar
mind. In Cangco v. Manila Railroad (38 Phil. 780), Mr. Justice Fisher elucidated
thus: 'x x x. When such 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.'

"Immediately what comes to mind is the chapter of the Civil Code on Human
Relations, particularly Article 21 x x x."35