Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 56 views

    Cui vs. Arellano University Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kendra Qlo
    1) The plaintiff enrolled in the defendant university and received scholarships that refunded his tuition after each semester. However, he was made to sign a waiver stating he waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding his scholarship money to the defendant. 2) In his fourth year, the plaintiff's uncle severed ties with the defendant university and transferred to another school, which the plaintiff followed. When he applied to take the bar exam, the defendant refused to provide his transcripts without repayment of tuition. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the waiver was not valid and against public policy. Rights may only be waived if not contrary to law, public policy, or morals. The defendant was ordered to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Cui vs. Arellano University Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kendra Qlo
    56 views1 page
    1) The plaintiff enrolled in the defendant university and received scholarships that refunded his tuition after each semester. However, he was made to sign a waiver stating he waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding his scholarship money to the defendant. 2) In his fourth year, the plaintiff's uncle severed ties with the defendant university and transferred to another school, which the plaintiff followed. When he applied to take the bar exam, the defendant refused to provide his transcripts without repayment of tuition. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the waiver was not valid and against public policy. Rights may only be waived if not contrary to law, public policy, or morals. The defendant was ordered to

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The plaintiff enrolled in the defendant university and received scholarships that refunded his tuition after each semester. However, he was made to sign a waiver stating he waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding his scholarship money to the defendant. 2) In his fourth year, the plaintiff's uncle severed ties with the defendant university and transferred to another school, which the plaintiff followed. When he applied to take the bar exam, the defendant refused to provide his transcripts without repayment of tuition. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the waiver was not valid and against public policy. Rights may only be waived if not contrary to law, public policy, or morals. The defendant was ordered to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    56 views1 page

    Cui vs. Arellano University Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kendra Qlo
    1) The plaintiff enrolled in the defendant university and received scholarships that refunded his tuition after each semester. However, he was made to sign a waiver stating he waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding his scholarship money to the defendant. 2) In his fourth year, the plaintiff's uncle severed ties with the defendant university and transferred to another school, which the plaintiff followed. When he applied to take the bar exam, the defendant refused to provide his transcripts without repayment of tuition. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the waiver was not valid and against public policy. Rights may only be waived if not contrary to law, public policy, or morals. The defendant was ordered to

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY OF WAIVER OF RIGHTS

    G.R. No. L-15127, May 30, 1961

    CUI vs. ARELLANO UNIVERSITY

    CONCEPCION, J.:

    Doctrine: Only waiver of rights that are not against law, public order or public policy, moral or good
    customs are valid.

    Facts: The plaintiff enrolled to the defendant’s school from first year to fourth year first semester
    because his Uncle, Francisco R. Capistrano, was the dean of the College of Law and legal counsel of the
    defendant university. During his stay in defendant university, he was awarded scholarship grants that his
    semestral tuitions were to be refunded every after semestral ends. But before defendant awarded to
    plaintiff the scholarship grants as above stated, he was made to sign a waiver stating ‘I hereby waive my
    right to transfer to another school without having refunded to the University (defendant) the equivalent
    of my scholarship cash’. In fourth year second semester, his uncle severed ties with the defendant
    university and transferred to Abad Santos University which the appellant has later followed on. After
    graduating in law from Abad Santos University he applied to take the bar examination. To secure
    permission to take the bar he needed the transcripts of his records in defendant Arellano University.
    However, the defendant refused to issue such records without him paying all the tuition fees that was
    awarded to him. As he could not take the bar examination without those transcripts, plaintiff paid to
    defendant the said sum under protest. Later, the appellant brought out an action to recover a sum of
    P1,033.87. The lower court resolved this question in the affirmative in favor of defendant, upon the
    ground that the aforementioned memorandum of the Director of Private Schools is not a law; that the
    provisions thereof are advisory, not mandatory in nature; and that, although the contractual provision
    "may be unethical, yet it was more unethical for plaintiff to quit studying with the defendant without
    good reasons and simply because he wanted to follow the example of his uncle."

    Issue: Whether or not the waiver of the appellant’s right to transfer to another school without
    refunding to the latter the equivalent of his scholarships in cash, is valid or not?

    Ruling: No. The waiver is not valid.

    In case at bar, the waiver that is being talked about concerns public policy, morals & good customs. It
    must be noted that under Article 6 of Civil Code, rights may be waived unless it is contrary to law, public
    policy or public order, good customs or morals.

    Hence, the Supreme court decided that the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and orders the
    defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of P1,033.87, with interest thereon at the legal rate from
    September 1, 1954, date of the institution of this case, as well as the costs, and dismissing defendant's
    counterclaim.

    You might also like