Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 125 views

    Jenosa vs. Delariate

    Uploaded by

    kennethpenus
    The case involved students from the University of San Agustin who were caught engaging in hazing. An agreement was reached where students who initiated the hazing would transfer schools, while those who participated would be suspended. The parents signed agreeing to this. However, the parents later urged the principal not to implement the agreement. The principal then ordered the transferring students to transfer immediately. The students filed for an injunction, which was granted. The University appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the University, finding the trial court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the principal had authority to order the transfers based on the agreement. It also held the students had unclean hands since they reneged on the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Jenosa vs. Delariate

    Uploaded by

    kennethpenus
    125 views1 page
    The case involved students from the University of San Agustin who were caught engaging in hazing. An agreement was reached where students who initiated the hazing would transfer schools, while those who participated would be suspended. The parents signed agreeing to this. However, the parents later urged the principal not to implement the agreement. The principal then ordered the transferring students to transfer immediately. The students filed for an injunction, which was granted. The University appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the University, finding the trial court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the principal had authority to order the transfers based on the agreement. It also held the students had unclean hands since they reneged on the

    Original Description:

    Jenosa vs. Delariate

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved students from the University of San Agustin who were caught engaging in hazing. An agreement was reached where students who initiated the hazing would transfer schools, while those who participated would be suspended. The parents signed agreeing to this. However, the parents later urged the principal not to implement the agreement. The principal then ordered the transferring students to transfer immediately. The students filed for an injunction, which was granted. The University appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the University, finding the trial court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the principal had authority to order the transfers based on the agreement. It also held the students had unclean hands since they reneged on the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    125 views1 page

    Jenosa vs. Delariate

    Uploaded by

    kennethpenus
    The case involved students from the University of San Agustin who were caught engaging in hazing. An agreement was reached where students who initiated the hazing would transfer schools, while those who participated would be suspended. The parents signed agreeing to this. However, the parents later urged the principal not to implement the agreement. The principal then ordered the transferring students to transfer immediately. The students filed for an injunction, which was granted. The University appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the University, finding the trial court did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the principal had authority to order the transfers based on the agreement. It also held the students had unclean hands since they reneged on the

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Jenosa vs.

    Delariate
    G.R. No. 172138. September 8, 2010

    Facts: Some students of the University of San Agustin (among them are the petitioner students) were
    caught engaging in hazing outside the school premises. Thereafter, dialogues and consultations were
    conducted among the school authorities, the apprehended students and their parents. During the
    November 28, 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. In view of the agreement,
    the University did not anymore convene the Committee on Student Discipline (COSD) to investigate the
    hazing incident.

    However, the parents of petitioner students sent a letter to the University President urging him not to
    implement the November 28, 2002 agreement. According to petitioner parents, the Principal, without
    convening the COSD, decided to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students.

    Petitioners then filed a complaint for injunction and damages with the RTC. 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 RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and
    directed the University to admit petitioner students during the pendency of the case. The University filed a
    motion for reconsideration and asked for the dissolution of the writ. The trial court denied the motion. The
    University complied but with reservations.

    Consequently, petitioners wrote the DepEd and asked that it direct the University to release the report
    cards and other credentials of petitioner students. The University said that it could not release petitioner
    students’ report cards due to their pending disciplinary case with the COSD. Petitioners then 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. Meanwhile, the COSD issued its report finding
    petitioner students guilty of hazing.

    The University filed a special civil action with the Court of Appeals. The CA ruled in favor of the University
    and held that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter because of petitioners’ failure to
    exhaust administrative remedies or for being premature and it was guilty of improper judicial intrusion by
    encroaching into the exclusive prerogative of educational institutions.

    Issue: Whether or not the trial court was correct in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the
    Principal’s decision to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students?

    Held: No. Schools and school administrators have the authority to maintain school discipline and the right
    to impose appropriate and reasonable disciplinary measures. In this case, the Principal had the authority
    to order the immediate transfer of petitioner students because of the November 28, 2002 agreement.
    Petitioner parents affixed their signatures to the minutes of the November 28, 2002 meeting and signified
    their conformity to transfer their children to another school. In turn, the University did not anymore
    convene the COSD. The University agreed that it would no longer conduct disciplinary proceedings and
    instead issue the transfer credentials of petitioner students. 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. This is so because 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 as to the controversy in
    issue.

    Here, petitioners, having reneged on their agreement without any justifiable reason, come to court with
    unclean hands. The Court may deny a litigant relief if his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and
    dishonest as to the controversy in issue. Since petitioners have come to court with inequitable and unfair
    conduct, the injunction should not be issued.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy