Case Digest (G.R. No. L-15127)
Facts:
Emeterio Cui v. Arellano University, G.R. No. L-15127. May 30, 1961, Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff Emeterio Cui enrolled in preparatory and thereafter in the College of Law of defendant Arellano University beginning with the 1948–1949 school year. He completed his law studies in Arellano up to and including the first semester of his fourth year, during which period he was the recipient of recurring scholarship grants awarded for scholastic merit; the semestral tuition fees were refunded to him after the ends of semesters. The total amount of tuition refunded to him by Arellano from his first semester through the first semester of his fourth year was P1,033.87.
Before the defendant awarded these scholarship grants, Cui signed a written undertaking stating: "In consideration of the scholarship granted to me by the University, I hereby waive my right to transfer to another school without having refunded to the University (defendant) the equivalent of my scholarship cash." During Cui's later law studies his uncle, Dean Francisco R. Capistrano (then dean of Arellano's College of Law and legal counsel of Arellano), severed his connection with Arellano and accepted the deanship of Abad Santos University. Cui thereupon enrolled for his last semester in the College of Law of Abad Santos University and graduated from Abad Santos.
When Cui applied to take the bar examination he required transcripts from Arellano. Arellano refused to release the transcripts unless he reimbursed the P1,033.87 that had earlier been refunded to him under his scholarships; despite a request and the intervention of the Bureau of Private Schools (which had issued Memorandum No. 38, s. 1949, addressing scholarships and advising that scholarship recipients should not be required to pay back tuition corresponding to scholarships upon transfer), Arellano refused and Cui paid the P1,033.87 under protest so he could take the bar in 1953.
Cui sued Arellano in the Court of First Instance of Manila for recovery of P1,033.87, plus moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and litigation expenses; Arellano answered, denied unlawfulness, characterized the Bureau memorandum as advisory and void, and filed a counterclaim for P10,000 plus attorney's fees. The trial court (Court of First Instance of Manila) absolved Arellano and dismissed ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the contractual stipulation by which a scholarship recipient waived the right to transfer to another school without refunding the equivalent value of the scholarship valid and enforceable, or is it void as contrary to public policy?
- Does Memorandum No. 38, series of 1949, issued by the Director of Private Schools, bind or control the legality of ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)