In the Philippine academic setting, the collection of "module fees" or the mandatory sale of self-authored instructional materials by professors is a recurring issue. While academic freedom allows educators to determine their teaching methods, it does not grant them the license to impose unauthorized financial burdens on students. When a professor collects fees for modules—often under the guise of "required reading"—without university approval or in violation of education laws, students and parents have several legal avenues for recovery and redress.

I. The Regulatory Framework

The primary regulatory bodies governing these practices are the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) for tertiary education and the Legal Education Board (LEB) for law schools. Under CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 40, Series of 2008, and various updates, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are prohibited from collecting fees that are not explicitly approved by the university administration and reported to CHED.

Furthermore, Republic Act No. 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines, protects students as consumers of educational services against "unfair or unconscionable sales acts or practices."

II. Administrative Remedies

Administrative actions are often the most efficient route for the recovery of unauthorized fees.

1. Internal Grievance Mechanism

Most universities have a Student Manual that outlines a grievance procedure.

Action: Filing a formal complaint with the Dean or the Office of Student Affairs (OSA).
Basis: Violation of the school’s internal policies regarding the prohibition of direct fee collection by faculty members.
Outcome: The university can order the professor to refund the collected amounts and may impose disciplinary sanctions, including suspension or termination.

2. CHED Complaint

If the university fails to act, a complaint may be filed with the CHED Regional Office.

Grounds: Violation of manual of regulations for private/public HEIs.
Power: CHED has the authority to investigate and order the refund of unauthorized fees and can penalize the institution for failing to monitor its faculty.

III. Civil Remedies

Civil law provides the strongest basis for the actual "recovery" of money through the principle of Quasi-contract.

1. Solutio Indebiti (Article 2154, Civil Code)

The principle of solutio indebiti applies when something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake.

Application: If a professor demands payment for a module that is supposed to be free or included in the tuition, the payment is considered "undue."
Remedy: An action for the return of the money.

2. Small Claims Court

For fee recoveries typically amounting to less than PHP 1,000,000.00 (in Metropolitan Trial Courts), students can file a Small Claims case.

Process: This is a summary procedure where lawyers are not allowed. It is inexpensive and fast.
Evidence: Receipts, text messages, or syllabus entries showing the mandatory requirement and the payment made.

IV. Criminal and Professional Liability

In extreme cases, particularly where coercion or large-scale unauthorized collection is involved, criminal charges may be applicable.

1. Estafa (Article 315, Revised Penal Code)

If a professor misrepresents that the fee is an "official university requirement" when it is actually for personal gain, the elements of deceit and damage (financial loss) may constitute Estafa.

2. Violation of RA 6713 (For Public Universities)

For professors in State Universities and Colleges (SUCs), the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees applies.

Prohibition: Section 7 prohibits public officials from having a financial interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office. Selling modules directly to students for profit can be interpreted as a violation of ethical standards.

3. PRC Administrative Case

Licensed professionals (such as CPAs, Engineers, or Librarians who teach) are subject to the Code of Ethics of their respective boards under the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). Unethical financial dealings with students can be grounds for the suspension or revocation of their professional license.

V. Key Evidence for Recovery

To successfully recover module fees, the following documentation is essential:

Proof of Payment: Acknowledgment receipts, bank transfer screenshots (GCash/Maya), or witnesses.
The Module/Material: The physical or digital copy of the material sold.
The Syllabus: Evidence that the module was made a "mandatory" requirement for passing the subject.
University Policy: A certification from the Accounting Office or Registrar that no such fee is authorized by the institution.

Summary Table of Remedies

Forum	Action	Primary Goal
University Dean/OSA	Administrative Complaint	Refund and Faculty Discipline
CHED/LEB	Regulatory Complaint	Institutional Compliance and Refund
Small Claims Court	Civil Action	Legal Judgment for Sum of Money
Ombudsman	Administrative/Criminal	Accountability (for Public University Staff)