Case Digest (G.R. No. 168008)
Facts:
Petronilo J. Barayuga v. Adventist University of the Philippines, G.R. No. 168008, August 17, 2011, First Division, Bersamin, J., writing for the Court.
The petition challenges the Court of Appeals (CA) decision of August 5, 2004, which nullified the writ of preliminary injunction that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Imus, Cavite, had issued to prevent Adventist University of the Philippines (AUP) and its Board of Trustees, represented by Chairman Nestor D. Dayson, from removing petitioner Petronilo J. Barayuga as AUP President.
AUP is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution incorporated March 3, 1932, under the Seventh-day Adventist church structure and subject to the North Philippine Union Mission (NPUM). At the NPUM quinquennial session in late 2000 the NPUM Executive Committee elected members of AUP’s Board of Trustees; Dayson became Chairman and Barayuga was chosen Secretary. On January 23, 2001, the Board appointed Barayuga President of AUP.
An external performance audit by NPUM (November 11–13, 2002) reported alleged managerial and fiscal irregularities by Barayuga. The NPUM engaged the General Conference Auditing Service (GCAS) to verify these findings; GCAS conducted a review (December 4–20, 2002) and on December 20 reported observations and recommendations to the Board. After GCAS confirmed the findings, the NPUM informed Barayuga and required explanations in January 2003.
A special Board meeting on January 22, 2003, at which Barayuga (as Secretary) presented the auditors’ reports and his written responses, was adjourned without decision to give the Board time to deliberate. The Board scheduled another meeting on January 27, 2003. At that meeting, by secret ballot, the Board voted to remove Barayuga as President for serious violations of rules on disbursement and use of funds, to appoint a three-member interim committee to assume presidential duties, and to recommend an alternative position for him to the NPUM. Barayuga received notice (January 28, 2003) and sought two weeks to seek reconsideration; the Board reconvened the evening of January 28 and denied reconsideration. An inter-school memorandum of January 31, 2003 announced his relief and the interim committee’s appointment.
On February 4, 2003, Barayuga filed in the RTC a complaint for injunction and damages with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO), alleging invalid removal despite a five‑year presidential term, bad faith by the Board, and denial of due process. The parties agreed not to harass each other at a hearing on February 7, 2003, prompting the RTC to issue a status quo order (February 11, 2003). After summary hearings (by affidavits because the dispute was intra‑corporate and summary), the RTC issued a TRO (March 21, 2003) and, on April 25, 2003, granted a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining AUP and its interim committee from implementing the Board’s resolution removing Barayuga. The RTC did not require a bond and found the January 22/27 special meetings invalid for lack of proper notices, held that the alleged conflict‑of‑interest did not apply, and concluded Barayuga was denied due process.
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari in the CA arguing that the injunctive relief was unsupported because Barayuga had no legal right to be protected (his appointment was for only two years under AUP’s amended By‑Laws), and that the RTC’s issuance of the injunction was grave abuse. The CA issued a TRO (February 24, 2004) staying RTC proceedings and held that the injunctive relief would be resolved with the main case. The CA, in a decision promulgated August 5, 2004, nullified and set aside the RTC writ of preliminary injunction: it found that the sample “Bluebook” pages Barayuga offered were unauthenticated and unadopted, that AUP’s amended By‑Laws established two‑year terms and that Barayuga was a de facto/officer in hold‑over, and that he had no legal right justifying injunctive protection. The CA also discussed the limits of judicial admissions and found that AUP would be injured by the injunction’s disruptive effects.
Barayuga filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (Rule 45), arguing, inter alia, that the CA erred in applying certiora...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the petition for review moot because the injunctive relief sought in the RTC has become impossible of enforcement?
- Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TRO and writ of preliminary injunction where the petitioner lacked a present legal right to be protected?
- Was the petitioner’s term as AUP President five years as he claimed, or two years under AUP’s amended By‑Laws and the Corporation Code?
- Was the petitioner denied due process by the Board of Trustees’ proceedings and by the ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)