DOJ Opinion No. 102, s. 1981

DOJ OPINION NO. 102 , s. 1981 July 20, 1981 Dr. Camar A. Umpa Officer-In-Charge Mindanao State University Marawi City Sir : This refers to your request for opinion regarding the legality of the implementation by the Mindanao State University (MSU) of a "student insurance scheme" under which the University would prescribe as a requirement for admission thereto of every enrolling student the prior taking of a life and/or accident insurance policy. Subject to the extended discussion hereunder, we opine that it would not be legally feasible for the MSU to implement such a scheme. You state that the University has thought of adopting the subject scheme in view of the number of fatal accidents involving students of the University and the expenses arising from such accidents always had to be defrayed by the University and that as a remedy "the university administration attempted insuring students at University expense, but the Commission on Audit ruled the same to be 'ultra-vires'. Hence, the MSU thought of subject scheme under which no student will be admitted to the university unless he first insures himself with the Phil-Am Insurance Company for not less than P10.000, the premiums to be borne by the student as a "special fee" pursuant to Section 6(f) of the MSU Charter (RA 1387). And so you also ask whether the MSU Board of Regents "may include it [the premium] as a special fee". The MSU was established pursuant to Republic Act. No. 1387, as a corporation, for the purpose of "accelerating the program of education among the peoples of the south, particularly the Muslims and others belonging to the national minorities." Being a corporation, it can only exercise those powers and functions which are expressly vested in it by its charter or which may necessarily be Implied from those thus expressly vested. (See section 45, Corporation Code of the Philippines [B.P. Blg. 68]) We have examined the Charter of the MSU and we have not been able to find any provision therein which might justify the adoption/implementation by the MSU of subject "student Insurance scheme". While the MSU, through its Board Regents, is empowered to enact rules and regulations for the government of the University (see section 6[h], R.A. No. 1387, as amended), such duly enacted rules and regulations, must however, be "consistent with the purpose of the University as defined in Section 2 of [the] Act"? (See supra ). Even if the MSU should authorize the adoption of subject insurance scheme under a rule or regulation to be issued by its Board of Regents pursuant to Section 6[h], supra , we do not think that such a rule/regulation would be valid as it would not be consistent with the purposes of the MSU as defined in its Charter. Obviously such rule/regulation might, instead of promoting the purpose of the MSU, even thwart their effective accomplishment as it could discourage prospective students from enrolling in The university. prcd Furthermore, the compulsory aspect of the subject scheme, in the sense that it would be a requirement for admission" to the university, renders the same arbitrary and therefore objectionable. If under Section 3 of the MSU Charter, "no student shall be denied admission to the University by reason of age, sex, nationality, religions belief, or political application", with less reason should a student be denied admission for failure to insure himself before enrolling in the University. Finally, we believe that the insurance premiums due under the scheme may not be collected from the students as a "special fee" under the cited provision of the MSU Charter which reads: "SEC. 6. The Board of Regents shall have the following powers and duties, in addition to its general powers of administration and the exercise of the powers of the corporation. xxx xxx xxx "(f) To approve the courses of study and rules of discipline drawn up by the University Council as hereinafter provided, to fix the tuition fees required of students, as well as matriculation fees, graduation fees and fees for laboratories and all special fees : and to remit the same in special cases." (Emphasis supplied.) Under the rule of "ejusdem generis" which states that where . . . general words follow a designation of particular subjects or classes of persons, the meaning of the general word will ordinarily be presumed to be restricted by the particular designation and to include only things or persons of the same kind, class or nature as those specifically enumerated," (Genato Commercial Corporation vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 104 Phil. 617 [1958]) the "special fees" mentioned in the aforequoted provision must refer to fees similar or akin to tuition, matriculation, graduation or laboratory fees or fees charged by the university for services it renders in the course of its education of the students. The premiums" to be paid by the students under the proposed student insurance scheme" are clearly not akin or similar in nature to any of the enumerated fees. Moreover, while the fees" enumerated in Section 6(f), supra , are to be collected by and for the benefit of the university, the premiums which are to be collected are not to be used by the university, but will be remitted to Phil-Am Insurance Company, thus making the university a mere collection agent in the process. Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) RICARDO C. PUNO Minister of Justice