CASE DIGEST: Ledesma v. CA (G.R. No. 54598)

CASE DIGEST: [ G.R. No. 54598, April 15, 1988 ] JOSE B. LEDESMA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES PACIFICO DELMO AND SANCHA DELMO (AS PRIVATE RESPONDENTS), RESPONDENTS.

FACTS: A college student was scheduled to graduate with magna cum laude honors. However, this was deprived of her because her lending of money to members of an organization of which she was a member, purportedly in violation of existing school rules and regulations, according to the President of the State College. This was done although the Bureau of Public Schools already intervened and instructed give her said honors. Despite this, she was made to graduate as a plain student. The Supreme Court held the President liable for damages.

ISSUE: IS THE PRESIDENT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES?

HELD: Yes, the President is liable for damages.

We find no reason why the findings of the trial and appellate courts should be reversed. It cannot be disputed that Violeta Delmo went through a painful ordeal which was brought about by the petitioner’s neglect of duty and callousness. Thus, moral damages are but proper. As we have affirmed in the case of Prudenciado v. Alliance Transport System, Inc., 148 SCRA 440, 448):

"There is no argument that moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of defendant's wrongful act or omission." (People v. Bayln, 129 SCRA 62, 1984)