8/13/2019 Law Related Educ_Final Exam

1/2

Final Exam

Law Related Studies in Education

Name:_______________________________Course/Year:________________Date/Year:_________

Answer the question after each case. Observe the correct grammar and write your justifications in anorderly and deductive manner. Write your answers at the back pages.

I.Romeo Jader, a law student of the University of the East, failed to take his regular examination inPractice Court I in his first semester of his last school year. However, he was able to remove theincomplete mark when the Dean of his college approved his application to take a removal examination.

In the 2nd semester, his name appeared in the tentative list of candidates for graduation for the Decree ofBachelor of Laws and in the invitation for the 35th Investiture and Commencement Ceremonies, theplaintiffs name appeared. Thus, he attended the investiture ceremonies and graduated.

On April to September 1998, he took a leave of absence from his work and enrolled at the pre-bar review

class in Far Eastern University. To his dismay upon knowing that he incurred a deficiency, he dropped hisreview class and was not able to take the bar examinations.

He then filed a suit against UE praying for moral and exemplary damages arising from the lattersnegligence. The trial court ruled in his favor and was granted for actual damages. The Court of Appealsaffirmed the trial courts decision with modification. The CA awarded moral damages. On account ofsuffering moral shock, mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings andsleepless nights and ultimately for not having to take the bar exam.

Question: Is the claim for damages of Romeo Jader valid? Write your answer in not more than 7sentences.

II.Some 800 public school teachers undertook mass concerted actions to protest the alleged failureof public authorities to act upon their grievances. The mass actions consisted in staying away from theirclasses, converging at the Liwasang Bonifacio, gathering in peacable assemblies, etc. The Secretary ofEducation served them with an order to return to work within 24 hours or face dismissal. For failure toheed the return-to-work order, eight teachers at the Ramon Magsaysay High School were administrativelycharged, preventively suspended for 90 days pursuant to sec. 41, P.D. 807 and temporarily replaced. Aninvestigation committee was consequently formed to hear the charges.

When their motion for suspension was denied by the Investigating Committee, said teachers staged awalkout signifying their intent to boycott the entire proceedings. Eventually, Secretary Carino decreeddismissal from service of Esber and the suspension for 9 months of Babaran, Budoy and del Castillo. Inthe meantime, a case was filed with RTC, raising the issue of violation of the right of the striking teachersto due process of law. The case was eventually elevated to SC. Also in the meantime, the respondentteachers submitted sworn statements to Commission on Human Rights to complain that while they wereparticipating in peaceful mass actions, they suddenly learned of their replacement as teachers, allegedlywithout notice and consequently for reasons completely unknown to them.

While the case was pending with CHR, SC promulgated its resolution over the cases filed with it earlier,upholding the Sec. Carinos act of issuing the return -to-work orders. Despite this, CHR continued hearingits case and held that the striking teachers were denied due process of law;they should not h avebeen replaced without a chance to reply to the administrative charges; there had been violation of theircivil and political rights which the Commission is empowered to investigate.

Questions:1. Was the CHR correct in deciding about the case? Explain your answer in not more than 7

sentences.2. Should the teachers follow the order of the Secretary of Education over the order of the CHR?

III.In 1989, DECS Regional Office in Cebu received complaints about teachers and pupils belonging to

the Jehovahs Witness, and enrolled in various public and private schools, which refused to sing the Phil.National Anthem, salute the flag and recite the patriotic pledge.

Division Superintendent of schools, Susana B. Cabahug of the Cebu Division of DECS and her Assistantissued Division Memorandum No. 108, dated Nov. 17, 1989, directing District Supervisors, High SchoolPrincipals and Heads of Private Educational institutions to remove from service, after due process,teachers and school employees, and to deprive the students and pupils from the benefit of publiceducation, if they do not participate in daily flag ceremony and doesnt obey flag salute rule.

8/13/2019 Law Related Educ_Final Exam

2/2