Jenosa vs. Delariarte Digest
G.R. No. 172138: September 8, 2010
NELSON JENOSA and his son NIÑO CARLO JENOSA, SOCORRO CANTO and her son PATRICK CANTO, CYNTHIA APALISOK and her daughter CYNDY APALISOK, EDUARDO VARGAS and his son CLINT EDUARD VARGAS, and NELIA DURO and her son NONELL GREGORY DURO, Petitioners, v. REV. FR. JOSE RENE C. DELARIARTE, O.S.A., in his capacity as the incumbent Principal of the High School Department of the University of San Agustin, and the UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, herein represented by its incumbent President REV. FR. MANUEL G. VERGARA, O.S.A., Respondents.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
On 22 November 2002, some students of the University, among them petitioners Niño Carlo Jenosa, Patrick Canto, Cyndy Apalisok, Clint Eduard Vargas, and Nonell Gregory Duro (petitioner students), were caught engaging in hazing outside the school premises. The hazing incident was entered into the blotter of the Iloilo City Police.
Thereafter, dialogues and consultations were conducted where during the 28 November 2002 meeting, the parties agreed that, instead of the possibility of being charged and found guilty of hazing, the students who participated in the hazing incident as initiators, including petitioner students, would just transfer to another school, while those who participated as neophytes would be suspended for one month. The parents of the apprehended students, including petitioners, affixed their signatures to the minutes of the meeting to signify their conformity.
The parents of petitioner students (petitioner parents) sent a letter to the University President urging him not to implement the 28 November 2002 agreement. According to petitioner parents, the Principal, without convening the COSD, decided to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students.
On 10 December 2002, petitioner parents also wrote a letter to Mrs. Ida B. Endonila, School Division Superintendent, Department of Education (DepEd), Iloilo City, seeking her intervention and prayed that petitioner students be allowed to take the home study program instead of transferring to another school.
Petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioners assailed the Principal’s decision to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students as a violation of their right to due process because the COSD was not convened.
The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction and directed respondents to admit petitioner students during the pendency of the case.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. Respondents alleged that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping. The trial court denied respondents’ motion. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners wrote the DepEd and asked that it direct the University to release the report cards and other credentials of petitioner students. The University replied that it could not release petitioner students’ report cards due to their pending disciplinary case with the COSD.
NELSON JENOSA and his son NIÑO CARLO JENOSA, SOCORRO CANTO and her son PATRICK CANTO, CYNTHIA APALISOK and her daughter CYNDY APALISOK, EDUARDO VARGAS and his son CLINT EDUARD VARGAS, and NELIA DURO and her son NONELL GREGORY DURO, Petitioners, v. REV. FR. JOSE RENE C. DELARIARTE, O.S.A., in his capacity as the incumbent Principal of the High School Department of the University of San Agustin, and the UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, herein represented by its incumbent President REV. FR. MANUEL G. VERGARA, O.S.A., Respondents.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
On 22 November 2002, some students of the University, among them petitioners Niño Carlo Jenosa, Patrick Canto, Cyndy Apalisok, Clint Eduard Vargas, and Nonell Gregory Duro (petitioner students), were caught engaging in hazing outside the school premises. The hazing incident was entered into the blotter of the Iloilo City Police.
Thereafter, dialogues and consultations were conducted where during the 28 November 2002 meeting, the parties agreed that, instead of the possibility of being charged and found guilty of hazing, the students who participated in the hazing incident as initiators, including petitioner students, would just transfer to another school, while those who participated as neophytes would be suspended for one month. The parents of the apprehended students, including petitioners, affixed their signatures to the minutes of the meeting to signify their conformity.
The parents of petitioner students (petitioner parents) sent a letter to the University President urging him not to implement the 28 November 2002 agreement. According to petitioner parents, the Principal, without convening the COSD, decided to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students.
On 10 December 2002, petitioner parents also wrote a letter to Mrs. Ida B. Endonila, School Division Superintendent, Department of Education (DepEd), Iloilo City, seeking her intervention and prayed that petitioner students be allowed to take the home study program instead of transferring to another school.
Petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and damages with the Regional Trial Court. Petitioners assailed the Principal’s decision to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students as a violation of their right to due process because the COSD was not convened.
The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction and directed respondents to admit petitioner students during the pendency of the case.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss. Respondents alleged that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping. The trial court denied respondents’ motion. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration.
Petitioners wrote the DepEd and asked that it direct the University to release the report cards and other credentials of petitioner students. The University replied that it could not release petitioner students’ report cards due to their pending disciplinary case with the COSD.
Petitioners filed another complaint for mandatory injunction praying for the release of petitioner students’ report cards and other credentials.
The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction and directed the University to release petitioner students’ report cards and other credentials.
On 26 June 2003, the COSD met with petitioners for a preliminary conference on the hazing incident. On 7 July 2003, the University, through the COSD, issued its report finding petitioner students guilty of hazing. The COSD also recommended the exclusion of petitioner students from its rolls effective 28 November 2002.
Respondents filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Respondents insisted that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The Court of Appeals granted respondents’ petition and ordered the trial court to dismiss Civil Cases for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter because of petitioners’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies or for being premature. According to the Court of Appeals, petitioners should have waited for the action of the DepEd or of the University President before resorting to judicial action.
ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter for failure of petitioners to exhaust administrative remedies
POLITICAL LAW: Schools and school administrators have the authority to maintain school discipline and the right to impose appropriate and reasonable disciplinary measures
HELD:
Discipline in education is specifically mandated by the 1987 Constitution which provides that all educational institutions shall “teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, develop moral character and personal discipline.” Schools and school administrators have the authority to maintain school discipline and the right to impose appropriate and reasonable disciplinary measures. On the other hand, students have the duty and the responsibility to promote and maintain the peace and tranquility of the school by observing the rules of discipline.
In this case, we rule that the Principal had the authority to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students because of the 28 November 2002 agreement. Petitioner parents affixed their signatures to the minutes of the meeting and signified their conformity to transfer their children to another school. Then petitioners reneged on their agreement without any justifiable reason. Since petitioners’ present complaint is one for injunction, and injunction is the strong arm of equity, petitioners must come to court with clean hands.
