Case Digest (G.R. No. L-26170)
Facts:
Sps. Eugene C. Go and Angelita Go, and minor Emerson Chester Kim B. Go v. Colegio de San Juan de Letran, G.R. No. 169391, October 10, 2012, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are the parents and minor son (Emerson “Kim” Go); respondents are Colegio de San Juan de Letran, Rev. Fr. Edwin Lao (Father Rector/President), Rev. Fr. Jose Rhommel Hernandez (Father Prefect for Discipline), Albert Rosarda (Assistant Prefect for Discipline), and Ma. Teresa Suratos (Letran High School Principal). The petitioners sought civil damages for what they called the unlawful dismissal of their son from Letran’s high school rolls; respondents justified their action as disciplinary sanction for fraternity membership.In October 2001 Letran received information that fraternities were recruiting high school students and a list naming students allegedly involved. The school conducted an investigation that included medical exams; six students showed injuries consistent with hazing. Four neophytes admitted they were initiated into the Tau Gamma Fraternity at a hazing on October 3, 2001, and they identified senior members present, including Kim. A security officer also compiled an incident report and a list of 18 alleged fraternity members that included Kim.
School officials notified Kim and his parents, requested a written explanation (Kim submitted a denial dated December 19, 2001), and scheduled conferences (January 8 and January 15, 2002). The parents did not attend the January 8 conference; Mr. Go did not attend the January 15 conference. The Father Prefect recommended dismissal of the fraternity members; after Rector’s Council deliberation Fr. Lao decided that fourth-year students would not be allowed to graduate at Letran while non-fourth-year students could finish the year but be barred from re-enrollment. Kim’s sanction, as communicated to the family, was a suspension from January 16 to February 18, 2002; Mrs. Go asked for and received a deferment so Kim could take an examination. The school also arranged extension classes so sanctioned students could meet academic requirements; the petitioners refused to sign a pro-forma agreement and maintained that due process was not observed.
On January 28, 2002 the petitioners filed Civil Case No. C-19938 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City alleging unlawful dismissal and claiming moral, exemplary, and actual damages (including business losses claimed by Mr. Go). At trial the petitioners and school officials testified. The RTC (Judge Antonio J. Fineza) found the respondents failed to observe due process, the evidence was insufficient to prove fraternity membership, and that Letran lacked authority to dismiss students for fraternity membership; it awarded substantial actual, moral, and exemplary damages (totaling P30,000,000 plus P2,854,000 actual damages and attorneys’ fees) in a decision dated August 18, 2003.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a decision dated May 27, 2005 (CA‑G.R. CV No. 80349), reversed and set aside the R...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was due process afforded to petitioners in the disciplinary proceedings against Emerson Kim Go?
- Did Colegio de San Juan de Letran have the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions (suspension/dismissal) for fraternity membership under DECS Order No. 20, s. 1991 and applicable regulations?
- Are the respondents liable for moral, exemplary, or actual damages ar...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)