Title
Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 54598
Decision Date
Apr 15, 1988
A student treasurer, Violeta Delmo, faced disciplinary action for loaning club funds. Despite a favorable ruling from the Bureau of Public Schools, college president Ledesma withheld her honors, causing distress. The Supreme Court held Ledesma liable for damages due to bad faith and negligence.

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-05-1966)

Facts of the Case

The controversy arose when the Student Leadership Club at West Visayas College extended loans to its members, an action that the petitioner claimed violated school rules. After dropping Delmo from club membership and denying her eligibility for honors, she appealed to the Bureau of Public Schools. Following an investigation, the Bureau found that Violeta Delmo had acted in good faith and should not be deprived of honors she had earned. Despite receiving this directive on April 27, 1966, the petitioner failed to inform Delmo of her reinstatement and did not allow her to graduate with honors, opting instead to let her graduate without distinction.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court found that the petitioner acted in bad faith, noting his role in inducting club officers and allowing the club to co-sponsor events despite his claim of regulatory violations. His failure to follow the Bureau's directive and to communicate with Delmo's family led to significant emotional distress for both Delmo and her parents, who subsequently filed a lawsuit against him after her death. The trial court ruled in favor of the Delmos, ordering the petitioner to pay P20,000 for moral damages, P10,000 to the parents, and other damages.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, maintaining that the petitioner’s neglect and callous behavior warranted the awarded damages. The appellate court emphasized the petitioner’s obligation to act in accordance with the Bureau's findings, and his refusal to communicate Delmo’s reinstatement effectively constituted a violation of his duties.

Legal Analysis and Rulings

The primary legal issue revolved around the petitioner’s liability for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code, which addresses the obligation to act in good faith and with proper care. The Court upheld that Delmo's emotional suffering due to the petitioner's negligence warranted moral damages. The Court cited precedent establishing that moral damages encompass various forms of emotional injury, including mental anguish and humiliation, which clearly applied in this case.

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.