Jenosa v Delariarte G.r. No. 172138 Sept.

8, 2010
Overview
This is a consolidated case. The first case was about a complaint for
injunction and damages filed by petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo against respondents assailing the latters decision regarding the
immediate transfer of petitioner-students to another school being violative of
their right to due process because the Committee on Student Discipline has
not yet convened. Another complaint for mandatory injunction was then filed
before the same court and between the same parties praying for the release
of petitioner-students report cards and other credentials.
Facts:
Some students of the University, among them are petitioners in this case,
were caught engaging in hazing outside the school premises. The school
management was then alarmed by the said incident having been entered
into the blotter of the Iloilo City Police. Thereafter, dialogues and
consultations were conducted among the school authorities, the
apprehended students and their parents.
During the meeting dated 28 November 2002, the parties come to an
agreement 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. In
view of the agreement, the University did not anymore convene the
Committee on Student Discipline (COSD) to investigate the hazing incident.
On 3 January 2003, petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and
damages with the RTC Iloilo assailing the Principals decision ordering the
immediate transfer of petitioner students to another school. According to
petitioner, it was a violation of their right to due process because the COSD
has not yet convened. Consequently, 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 for
reconsideration and asked for the dissolution of the writ but these were
denied. Respondents complied, however, with reservations. Respondents
then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case and that petitioners were
guilty of forum shopping. Likewise, it was denied.
On 28 May 2003, petitioners filed another complaint for mandatory
injunction praying for the release of petitioner students report cards and
other credentials which was granted. Respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration alleging that they cannot comply because of the on-going
disciplinary case against petitioner students which was later denied by the
court.
The COSD then conducted an investigation on the hazing incident and
subsequently issued its report finding the petitioner students guilty of
hazing. Furthermore, it recommended the exclusion of petitioner students
from its rolls effective 28 November 2002.

On 1 September 2003, respondents then filed a special civil action for

certiorari with the Court of Appeals. Respondents insisted and maintained
their former stance that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject
matter of both civil cases and that petitioners were guilty of forum shopping.
CA ruled in favor of respondents for lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter because of petitioners failure to exhaust administrative remedies
available or for being prematurely filed.
Issue:
Whether or not the two writs of injunction were properly issued
Held:
Both No. Injunction is the strong arm of equity. Therefore, he who must
apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. (University of the
Philippines v. Hon. Catungal, Jr.)
In this case, petitioners, having reneged on their agreement without any
justifiable reason, come to court with unclean hands. Hence, the court may
deny a litigant relief if his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest
as to the controversy in issue.
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 thereon and thereby signified their
conformity to transfer their children to another school notwithstanding the
COSD has not convened.
The nature of Injunction in the celebrated case of University of
the Philippins v. Hon. Catungal, Jr.
among the maxims of equity are:
(1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and
(2) he who comes into equity must come with clean hands.
The latter is a frequently stated maxim which is also expressed in the
principle that he who has done inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that
a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the ground that his
conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or
deceitful.