Title
Oca vs. Custodio
Case
G.R. No. 174996
Decision Date
Dec 3, 2014
A dispute over board membership and control at St. Francis School led to legal challenges, with the Supreme Court ruling on due process and procedural errors in issuing a status quo order.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 174996)

Factual Background

St. Francis School of General Trias, Cavite, Inc. was founded on July 9, 1973, as a non-stock, non-profit educational institution, with its initial incorporators including Custodio, Mojica, Pascual, and two other individuals. By 1988, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was executed between the school and De La Salle Greenhills (DLSG), which allowed DLSG to supervise the school’s academic affairs. Subsequent to this, several brothers from DLSG were elected to key positions within the school’s Board of Trustees. Custodio challenged the validity of these elections, claiming that proper procedures had not been followed for the admission and election of DLSG’s representatives.

Legal Proceedings and Removal of Custodio

Custodio’s contestation led to an escalating series of legal disputes beginning in 2002, notably with a complaint questioning the legality of the Board of Trustees' composition. Following her objections to a proposed MOA granting DLSG broader powers, Custodio was removed from her position as Curriculum Administrator via resolutions adopted by the Board of Trustees citing a "willful breach of trust." She subsequently filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking injunctive relief against this removal.

Status Quo and Court Orders

On multiple occasions, the RTC issued orders pertinent to the continue operation of the school and addressed the conflicts arising from Custodio's removal. Notably, an order dated August 21, 2003 reinstated Custodio's powers, dictating that she could act as the school director and curriculum administrator until a further resolution of the conflict was reached.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Dissatisfied with the RTC rulings, the petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals. They claimed that they were denied due process due to the manner in which these orders had been issued and that the status quo order lacked the necessary procedural safeguards, such as a required bond prior to its issuance. The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC’s orders, prompting petitioners to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the claims of grave abuse of discretion by the RTC in issuing the August 5, 2003, and October 8, 2003 orders, determining that while the petitioners were not deprived of due process, the August 21, 2003 Status Quo Order had been improperly issued. The Court emphasized tha

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.