Case Digest (G.R. No. 100335)
Facts:
Unciano Paramedical College, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 100335, April 07, 1993, the Supreme Court Second Division, Nocon, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are Unciano Paramedical College, Inc. (now Unciano Colleges & General Hospital, Inc.), Mirando C. Unciano, Sr., Dominador Santos and Editha Mora; private respondents are students Elena Villegas and Ted Magallanes who sued through their mothers, Victoria Villegas and Jacinta Magallanes. Public respondent is the Court of Appeals (with the trial judge at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Manila, as a respondent in capacity).Around July–December 1989 the two students spearheaded a petition to organize a student council and gathered signatures; school officials, including Dr. Evelyn Moral (Dean of Discipline) and Dean Laureana Vitug, warned them not to proceed and later informed them they would be barred from enrollment for alleged harassment, inviting outsiders to speak, membership in activist organizations, and drug use. The students sought administrative conferences; their counsel (FLAG) demanded due process. Meetings were held on November 17, 27 and 29, 1989, but the school repeatedly postponed or failed to resolve matters; the Board of Trustees ultimately refused parental requests to allow re-enrollment, and on December 11, 1989 the students were informed the Board denied reinstatement.
On April 16, 1990 the private respondents filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 21, Manila, Civil Case No. 90-52745, a petition for injunction and damages with prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction to compel the school to enroll them for the first semester of school year 1990–1991. On May 16, 1990 the RTC issued a temporary restraining order effective May 17, 1990 and set hearing on the preliminary injunction for June 4, 1990. On June 4, 1990 the trial court granted the petition for a preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering the respondents to allow the students to enroll upon filing bond of P2,000.00 each; the writ issued June 11, 1990. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied on June 13, 1990.
Petitioners elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals by a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction (CA-G.R. SP No. 21020). The Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by Justice Arturo B. Buena, dismissed the petition for lack of merit on February 7, 1991, relying on the Supreme Court’s later decision in Ariel Non, et al. v. Sancho Dames II, et al. (which had overruled the earlier Alcuaz doctrine). The Court of Appeals’ dismissal and its June 3, 1991 resolution denying reconsideration prompted the present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Petitioners’ sole stated question was whether the Non doctrine should be applied retroactively to invalidate legal effects of incidents that occurred before its promulgation (i.e., whether schools th...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Should the Supreme Court’s decision in Ariel Non, et al. v. Dames II, et al. be applied retroactively to govern and invalidate legal effects of incidents that took place prior to its promulgation?
- Did the trial court commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction ordering petitioners to allow private respondents to enroll for the first ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)