GR L 15706; (May, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15706 May 27, 1965
ILDEFONSO D. YAP and PHILIPPINE HARVARDIAN COLLEGE, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. MANUEL L. CARREON, personally in his private capacity and as Director of Private Schools, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff-appellant Ildefonso D. Yap was the president and operator of the Philippine Harvardian College, which had branches including the San Fernando Branch in Pampanga and St. John’s College in Calumpit, Bulacan. In 1950, appellants applied for permits to offer new courses at these branches. Bureau of Private Schools inspections revealed deficiencies. The applications were subsequently disapproved due to these uncorrected deficiencies. On June 30, 1952, defendant-appellee Manuel L. Carreon, as Director of Private Schools, sent to the Secretary of Education a partial list of private school courses disauthorized for the school year 1952-1953, which the Secretary approved. This list, which included the disapproved courses of appellants’ schools, was published in metropolitan newspapers on July 1, 1952. Appellants filed a suit for damages against Director Carreon, alleging harm from the publication. The trial court dismissed the complaint, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the Director of Private Schools had the authority to publish a list of disapproved private school courses, and whether such publication, including the alleged branding of the schools as “diploma mills” in news reports, rendered him liable for damages.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The Director of Private Schools acted within his authority under Section 11 of Act No. 2706, which authorizes the publication of information for the public benefit. The Court rejected appellants’ narrow interpretation that the law only authorized lists of approved schools and courses. The publication of disapproved courses was a practical and effective means to inform the public, especially prospective students, to prevent loss of time, money, and effort. The Court found no evidence that appellee acted in bad faith or violated Article 19 of the Civil Code, as he did not single out appellants’ schools; they were among 66 listed. Furthermore, there was no satisfactory evidence that appellee himself branded the schools as “diploma mills”; the term appeared in news stories written by reporters, for which appellee could not be held responsible. The absence of a public denial by appellee of the newspaper statements did not create a presumption that he made them.