April 10, 2011

Cui vs Arellano University

TITLE: Emetrio Cui v Arellano University
CITATION: GR NO. L15127, May 30, 1961 | 112 Phil 135

FACTS:

Emetrio Cui took his preparatory law course at Arellano University.  He then enrolled in its College of Law from first year (SY1948-1949) until first semester of his 4th year.  During these years, he was awarded scholarship grants of the said university amounting to a total of P1,033.87.  He then transferred and took his last semester as a law student at Abad Santos University.   To secure permission to take the bar, he needed his transcript of records from Arellano University.  The defendant refused to issue the TOR until he had paid back the P1,033.87 scholarship grant which Emetrio refunded as he could not take the bar without Arellano’s issuance of his TOR.

On August 16, 1949, the Director of Private Schools issued Memorandum No. 38 addressing all heads of private schools, colleges and universities.  Part of the memorandum states that “the amount in tuition and other fees corresponding to these scholarships should not be subsequently charged to the recipient students when they decide to quit school or to transfer to another institution.  Scholarships should not be offered merely to attract and keep students in a school”.

ISSUE: Whether or not Emetrio Cui can refund the P1,033.97 payment for the scholarship grant provided by Arellano University.

HELD:

The memorandum of the Director of Private Schools is not a law where the provision set therein was advisory and not mandatory in nature.  Moreover, the stipulation in question, asking previous students to pay back the scholarship grant if they transfer before graduation, is contrary to public policy, sound policy and good morals or tends clearly to undermine the security of individual rights and hence, null and void.      
  
The court sentenced the defendant to pay Cui the sum of P1,033.87 with interest thereon at the legal rate from Sept.1, 1954, date of the institution of this case as well as the costs and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim.

No comments:

Post a Comment