Chiang Kai Shek School v. CA (1989)

Chiang Kai Shek School v. CA | G.R No. 58028 | April 18, 1989 | Cruz, J.
Nature: Petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals
Petitioner: Chiang Kai Shek School
Respondent: Court of Appeals; Faustina Franco Oh
TOPIC: Chapter 3: Formation and Organization
SUMMARY: Respondent Oh had been teaching for 32 years at Petitioner School when she was dismissed. She sued
the School, but the School contends that they could not be sued because they are not an incorporated school. Court
eventually ruled all in favor of Respondent Oh, holding that the School may be sued by itself, and that they have
illegally dismissed Oh, entitling the latter to separation pay.
Only natural or juridical persons may be parties in a civil action. BUT, although the school has not been
incorporated, the Court held that they may be sued. Act 2706 requires any private school or college recognized by
the government to incorporate within 90 days after the date of recognition, and shall file with the Secretary of
Public Instruction a copy of its incorporation papers and by-laws. Having been recognized by the government,
Petitioner was under obligation to incorporate. It had not done so. They cannot now invoke its own non-compliance
with the law to immunize it from Oh’s complaint.
FACTS
 Respondent Fausta F. Oh had been teaching for 32 years in Petitioner Chiang Kai Shek School when she was
told that she had no assignment for the next semester.
 Oh sued Petitioner, demanding separation pay and other benefits. The original defendant was Petitioner
alone.
o Petitioner: it could not be sued because it had never incorporated
o Therefore, the complaint was amended to implead and make solidary liable certain school officials.
 CFI of Sorsogon dismissed Oh’s complaint. CA reversed and held that the school was suable and liable, while
absolving the other defendants.
ISSUE:
1. WON Petitioner School can be sued? – YES
 Petitioner: only natural or juridical persons may be parties in a civil action. It has not been denied that
the school has not been incorporated.
 Act 2706 requires any private school or college recognized by the government to incorporate within 90
days after the date of recognition, and shall file with the Secretary of Public Instruction a copy of its
incorporation papers and by-laws.
 Having been recognized by the government, Petitioner was under obligation to incorporate. It had not
done so. They cannot now invoke its own non-compliance with the law to immunize it from Oh’s
complaint.
 Petitioner represented itself as possessed of juridical personality to do so, and is now estopped from
denying such personality to defeat a claim against it. (estoppel)
 Given that Petitioner school itself may be sued, individual members of the board of trustees are
not liable.
Other issues not related to class:

2. WON Petitioner School is a charitable institution? – NO
 The fact that it charges tuition fees and collects book rentals from its students weaken its claim that it is
a non-profit entity.
 Even if they were a charitable institution, they would still have to comply with Labor laws.
3. WON Oh had been illegally dismissed? – YES

 Petitioner: she wasn’t illegally dismissed because her teaching contract was on a yearly basis and the
school was not required to rehire her.
 Oh had become a permanent employee and is entitled to security of tenure. Since no cause was shown
and established at an appropriate hearing, and the notice then required by law had not been given, such
dismissal was invalid.
 That Oh allegedly did not report to school 1 week before the start of classes is a flimsy justification for
replacing her.
4. WON the separation pay awarded was valid? – NO

 Termination Pay Law, applicable at the time, only grants half-month salary for every year of service, not
whole month. Therefore, award of separation pay is reduced.
5. WON Oh is entitled to moral and exemplary damages? – YES

 Moral: Oh suffered mental anguish, serious anxiety, wounded feelings, and besmirched reputation.
 Exemplary: Petitioner School acted in a wanton and oppressive manner when they dismissed her.
DISPOSITION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The appealed decision is AFFIRMED except for the
award of separation pay, which is reduced to P2,880.00. All the other awards are approved. Costs against the
petitioner. This decision is immediately executory.
NOTES:

Chiang Kai Shek School v. CA (1989)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chiang Kai Shek School v. CA (1989)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chiang Kai Shek School v. CA | G.R No. 58028 | April 18, 1989 | Cruz, J.

Other issues not related to class:

3. WON Oh had been illegally dismissed? – YES

4. WON the separation pay awarded was valid? – NO

5. WON Oh is entitled to moral and exemplary damages? – YES

You might also like