Ledesma v.

CA,
G.R. No. L-54598 April 15, 1988
160 SCRA 449

FACTS:
Violeta Delmo was elected treasurer of a state college organization named Student
Leadership Club. Inthat capacity, she extended loans from the club funds to some students.
Thus the petitioner and college president, Jose B. Ledesma claiming that extending loans was
against school rules, wrote Delmo informing her that she was being dropped from the
membership of the club and that she would not be acandidate for any award from the school.
Delmo appealed to the Office of the Director of the Bureau of Public Schools. The Bureau
directed the college president not to deprive Delmo of any award if she is entitled to it. On April
27,1966, the President received the Directors decision. On the same day he received a
telegram airmail records Delmo missent that office. The Bureau Director asked for the return
only of the records but the President allegedly mistook the telegram as ordering him to also
send the decision back. So he returned by mail all the records plus the decision to the Director.
The next day the President received from the Bureau Director a telegram telling him to give a
copy of the decision to Delmo. The President in turn sent a telegram to the Bureau Director
telling him that he had returned the decision and that he had not retained a copy. On May 3,
the day of graduation, the President againreceived another telegram from the Director ordering
him not to deprive Delmo of any honors due her. As it was impossible by this time to include
Delmos name in the program as one of the honor students, the President let her graduate as a
plain student instead of being awarded the latin honor magna cumlaude.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petitioner is liable for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.
RULING:
The presidents failure to graduate a student with honors and blatant disregard of the
students rights on the account of him being embarrassed shows neglect of duty without just
cause, rendering him liable for damages under Article 27 of the Civil Code. Undoubtedly, the
student and the students parents went through a painful ordeal brought about by such neglect.
Defendant, being a public officer should have acted with circumspection and due
regard to the rights of Miss Delmo. Inasmuch as he exceeded the scope of his authority by
defiantly disobeying the lawful directive of his superior, Director Bernardino, defendant is liable
for damages in his personal capacity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED with the slight modification as stated in the preceding paragraph. This
decision is immediately executory.