Case Digest (G.R. No. 164978) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In KHRISTINE REA M. REGINO v. PANGASINAN COLLEGES OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, petitioner Khristine Rea M. Regino, assisted and represented by Armando Regino, was a first-year computer science student at Pangasinan Colleges of Science and Technology (PCST) during the second semester of School Year 2001-2002. Respondents PCST and its faculty members, Rachelle A. Gamurot and Elissa Baladad, required students to purchase two tickets at ₱100 each for a “Rave Party and Dance Revolution” fundraiser whose proceeds were to finance new athletic courts. Regino, who could not afford the tickets and whose religious convictions forbade attendance at dance parties, refused to pay and was consequently barred by Gamurot and Baladad from taking her final examinations in logic on March 14, 2002 and statistics on March 15, 2002. On April 25, 2002, Regino filed a complaint for nominal, moral, exemplary and actual damages against PCST, Gamurot and Baladad in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta ... Case Digest (G.R. No. 164978) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of the School-Student Relationship
- Enrollment as reciprocal contract: students agree to academic standards and conduct codes; school agrees to provide education and honor fees disclosed upon enrollment.
- Terms are fixed at enrollment; unilateral mid-term changes or new fees are disallowed.
- Events Leading to the Complaint
- Khristine Rea M. Regino enrolled for the second semester of SY 2001-2002 in PCST, taking Logic with Rachelle A. Gamurot and Statistics with Elissa Baladad.
- PCST’s February 2002 “Rave Party” fund‐raiser required each student to purchase two ₱100 tickets; incentives and penalties (extra test points or denial of final exams) were announced.
- Regino, financially constrained and on religious grounds objecting to dance parties, refused to pay.
- On March 14–15, 2002, Gamurot and Baladad barred her from taking final exams, seating her out or ejecting her from class.
- April 25, 2002: Regino filed a pauper’s Complaint for damages (₱500,000 nominal, ₱500,000 moral, ₱1,000,000 exemplary, ₱250,000 actual, plus costs and fees) against PCST, Gamurot, and Baladad.
- May 30, 2002: Respondents moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before CHED.
- July 12, 2002: RTC (Branch 48, Urdaneta) granted the motion, dismissing for lack of cause of action.
- November 22, 2002: RTC denied Regino’s motion for reconsideration.
- Regino petitioned the Supreme Court under Rule 45, challenging the two RTC orders.
Issues:
- Applicability of Administrative Remedies
- Does the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies apply to a civil action for damages under the Civil Code’s human relations provisions?
- Must Regino first seek CHED’s declaration of invalidity or remedy before suing for damages?
- Sufficiency of the Complaint’s Cause of Action
- Did the Complaint allege facts sufficient to state causes of action in contract and tort?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)