INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY vs. CHED
Dr. Reynaldo B. Vera, Chairman, Technical Panel for Engineering, Architecture, and Maritime Education (TPRAM) of C!ED", recei#ed a letter from Dougla$ R. Macia$, Chairman, Board of Aeronautical Engineering, Profe$$ional Regulatory" Commi$$ion (PRC) and Chairman, Technical Committee for Aeronautical Engineering (TPRAME) in%uiring &hether 'etitioner" had already ac%uired u"ni#er$ity $tatu$ in #ie& of the latter$ ad#erti$ement in the" Manila Bulletin.
FACTS:
Dr. Vera formally referred the afore$aid letter to Chairman Alcala &ith a re%ue$t that the concerned Regional ffice of C!ED" *e directed to conduct a''ro'riate in#e$tigation on the alleged mi$re're$entation *y 'etitioner". Thereafter, C!ED" referred the matter to it$ Regional Director in Ce*u City, re%ue$ting $aid office to conduct an in#e$tigation and $u*mit it$ re'ort. The re'ort $tated that there &a$ a #iolation committed *y" hi$ in$titution &hen it u$ed" the term uni#er$ity unle$$ the $chool had" com'lied &ith" the *a$ic re%uirement of *eing a uni#er$ity a$ 're$cri*ed in C!ED Memorandum rder +o. -, $. //0. A$ a con$e%uence of $aid Re'ort, re$'ondent$" 1egal Affair$ 2er#ice &a$ re%ue$ted to ta3e legal action again$t 'etitioner". 2u*$e%uently, re$'ondent" directed 'etitioner" to de$i$t from u$ing the term 4ni#er$ity, including the u$e of the $ame in any of it$ alleged *ranche$. 5n the cour$e of it$ in#e$tigation, re$'ondent" &a$ a*le to #erify from the 2ecuritie$ and E6change Commi$$ion (2EC) that 'etitioner had" filed a 'ro'o$al to amend it$ cor'orate name from 5ndiana 2chool of Aeronautic$ to 5ndiana Aero$'ace 4ni#er$ity, &hich &a$ $u''o$edly fa#ora*ly recommended *y the De'artment of Education, Culture and 2'ort$ (DEC2) and on that" *a$i$, 2EC i$$ued to 'etitioner" Certificate of Regi$tration. 2ur'ri$ingly, ho&e#er, it ought to *e noted, that 2EC Chairman Perfecto R. 7a$ay, 8r. &rote a letter to the c"hairman of re$'ondent" &hich $tated that 2EC record$ $ho& that the cor'oration ha$ not filed any amended article$ of incor'oration that changed it$ cor'orate name to include the term 4ni#er$ity. 5n ca$e the cor'oration $u*mit$" an a''lication for change of name, your Cea$e and De$i$t rder $hall *e con$idered accordingly. 5n reaction to re$'ondent$" order for 'etitioner" to de$i$t from u$ing the &ord 4ni#er$ity, 8o#enal Toring, c"hairman and f"ounder of 'etitioner" &rote a letter a''ealing for recon$ideration of re$'ondent$" rder, &ith a 'romi$e to follo& the 'ro#i$ion$ of CM +o. -. The a''eal of 'etitioner" &a$ ho&e#er re9ected *y re$'ondent" in it$ deci$ion and the latter" ordered the former to cea$e and de$i$t from u$ing the &ord 4ni#er$ity. !o&e#er, 'rior to thi$ deci$ion, 'etitioner" filed a Com'laint for Damage$ &ith 'rayer for :rit of Preliminary and Mandatory 5n9unction and Tem'orary Re$training rder again$t re$'ondent" &ith the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ma3ati City. Re$'ondent filed a 2'ecial A''earance &ith Motion to Di$mi$$, *a$ed on ) im'ro'er #enue; <) lac3 of authority of the 'er$on in$tituting the action; and =) lac3 of cau$e of action. Petitioner filed it$ ''o$ition to the Motion to Di$mi$$ on" ground$ $tated therein, to &hich re$'ondent" filed a Re'ly reiterating the $ame argument$ in it$ Motion to Di$mi$$. After due hearing, 'etitioner" formally offered it$ e#idence &hile re$'ondent" made a formal offer of e#idence to &hich 'etitioner" filed it$ Comment$>*9ection$ and finally, re$'ondent" $u*mitted it$
Memorandum relati#e thereto. The RTC denied re$'ondent$" Motion to Di$mi$$ and at the $ame time, i$$ued a :rit of Preliminary 5n9unction in fa#or of 'etitioner". Re$'ondent", in the $ame rder, &a$ directed to file it$ An$&er &ithin fifteen (?) day$ from recei't of $aid rder. Petitioner filed *efore the RTC a Motion To Declare Re$'ondent" in D"efault 'ur$uant to 2ection =, Rule / in relation to 2ection , Rule 0 of the Rule$ of Court, a$ amended, and at the $ame time 'raying for" the Motion to 2"et for !"earing on cto*er =@, //- at -=@ a.m. n the $ame date, re$'ondent" filed a Motion or E6ten$ion of Time to ile it$ An$&er. Petitioner, on +o#em*er , //- filed it$ ''o$ition to the Motion for E6ten$ion of Time to ile Re$'ondent$" An$&er and a Motion to E6'unge Re$'ondent$" An$&er and at the $ame time 'raying that it$ M"otion *e heard on +o#em*er <, //- at /@@ a.m. RTC i$$ued an rder directing the ffice of the 2olicitor eneral to file &ithin a 'eriod of ten (@) day$ from date it$ &ritten ''o$ition to the Motion to E6'unge Re$'ondent$" An$&er and &ithin the $ame 'eriod to file a &ritten +"otice of A"''earance in the ca$e. 4na*le to file their &ritten ''o$ition to the Motion to E6'unge &ithin the 'eriod gi#en *y 'u*lic re$'ondent, the 2 filed a Motion to Admit :ritten ''o$ition $tating the rea$on$ for the $ame, attaching thereto the ''o$ition &ith "ormal E"ntry of A"''earance. RTC then granted Petitioner$" Motion to Declare Re$'ondent in Default". Re$'ondent filed &ith the CA a Petition for Certiorari, arguing that the RTC had committed gra#e a*u$e of di$cretion (a) in denying the former$ Motion to Di$mi$$, (*) in i$$uing a :rit of Preliminary 5n9unction, and (c) in declaring re$'ondent in default de$'ite it$ filing an An$&er. The CA ruled that 'etitioner had no cau$e of action again$t re$'ondent. Petitioner failed to $ho& any e#idence that it had *een granted uni#er$ity $tatu$ *y re$'ondent a$ re%uired under e6i$ting la& and C!ED rule$ and regulation$. The CA al$o ruled that :rit of Preliminary 5n9unction had im'ro#idently *een i$$ued. The dou*tful right claimed *y 'etitioner i$ $u*ordinate to the 'u*lic intere$t to 'rotect un$u$'ecting $tudent$ and their 'arent$ from the unauthoried o'eration and mi$re're$entation of an educational in$titution. CA al$o ruled that re$'ondent $hould not ha#e *een declared in default, *ecau$e it$ An$&er had *een filed long *efore the RTC ruled u'on 'etitioner$ Motion to declare re$'ondent in default. Thu$, re$'ondent had not o*$tinately refu$ed to file an An$&er; on the contrary, it$ failure to do $o on time &a$ due to e6cu$a*le negligence. Thu$ thi$ 'etition. ISSUE: :hether HELD:
it &a$ right to di$mi$$ the ca$e
7E2.
Petitioner claim$ that the CA &ent *eyond it$ limited 9uri$diction under Rule 0? &hen it re#er$ed the trial court and di$mi$$ed the Com'laint on the ground that 'etitioner had failed to $tate a cau$e of action. The RTC had yet to conduct trial, *ut the CA already determined the factual i$$ue regarding 'etitioner$ ac%ui$ition of uni#er$ity $tatu$, a determination that i$ not 'ermitted in certiorari
'roceeding$. The CA ruled that the trial court gra#ely a*u$ed it$ di$cretion in denying re$'ondent$ Motion to Di$mi$$ on the ground of lac3 of cau$e of action *ecau$e of 'etitioner$ lac3 of legal authority or right to u$e the &ord Funi#er$ity.F An order denying a motion to di$mi$$ i$ interlocutory, and $o the 'ro'er remedy in $uch a ca$e i$ to a''eal after a deci$ion ha$ *een rendered. A &rit of certiorari i$ not intended to correct e#ery contro#er$ial interlocutory ruling; it i$ re$orted to only to correct a gra#e a*u$e of di$cretion or a &him$ical e6erci$e of 9udgment e%ui#alent to lac3 of 9uri$diction. 5t$ function i$ limited to 3ee'ing an inferior court &ithin it$ 9uri$diction and to relie#e 'er$on$ from ar*itrary act$ G act$ &hich court$ or 9udge$ ha#e no 'o&er or authority in la& to 'erform. 5t i$ not de$igned to correct erroneou$ finding$ and conclu$ion$ made *y the court. 5n the ca$e at *ar, &e find no gra#e a*u$e of di$cretion in the RTC$ denial of the Motion to Di$mi$$, the CA erred in ruling other&i$e. The trial court $tated in it$ Deci$ion that 'etitioner &a$ an educational in$titution, originally regi$tered &ith the 2ecuritie$ and E6change Commi$$ion a$ the F5ndiana 2chool of Aeronautic$, 5nc.F That name &a$ $u*$e%uently changed to F5ndiana Aero$'ace 4ni#er$ityF after the De'artment of Education, Culture and 2'ort$ had inter'o$ed no o*9ection to $uch change. Re$'ondent i$$ued a formal Cea$e and De$i$t rder directing 'etitioner to $to' u$ing the &ord Funi#er$ityF in it$ cor'orate name. The former al$o 'u*li$hed an announcement in an i$$ue of reeman, a local ne&$'a'er in Ce*u City, that there &a$ no in$titution of learning *y that name. The coun$el of re$'ondent &a$ %uoted a$ $aying in the March <-, //- i$$ue of the ne&$'a'er Today that 'etitioner had *een ordered clo$ed *y the re$'ondent for illegal ad#erti$ement, fraud and mi$re're$entation of it$elf a$ a uni#er$ity. 2uch act$, according to the RTC undermined the 'u*lic$ confidence in 'etitioner a$ an educational in$titution.- Thi$ &a$ a clear $tatement of a $ufficient cau$e of action. :hen a motion to di$mi$$ i$ grounded on the failure to $tate a cau$e of action, a ruling thereon $hould *e *a$ed only on the fact$ alleged in the com'laint. The court mu$t 'a$$ u'on thi$ i$$ue *a$ed $olely on $uch allegation$, a$$uming them to *e true. or it to do other&i$e &ould *e a 'rocedural error and a denial of 'laintiff$ right to due 'roce$$.
SUMMARY OF OTHER ISSUES:
T5ME15+E22 CERT5RAR5 Re$'ondent$ Petition for Certiorari &a$ $ea$ona*ly filed. 5n com'uting it$ timeline$$, &hat $hould ha#e *een con$idered &a$ not the rder of augu$t , //-, *ut the date &hen re$'ondent recei#ed the Decem*er /, //- rder declaring it in default. 2ince it recei#ed thi$ rder only on 8anuary =, ///, and filed it$ Petition for Certiorari on e*ruary <=, ///, it o*#iou$ly com'lied &ith the $i6tyHday reglementary 'eriod $tated in 2ection , Rule 0? of the // Rule$ of Court. Moreo#er, the Augu$t , //- rder &a$ not a 'ro'er $u*9ect of certiorari or a''eal, $ince it &a$ merely an interlocutory order. MT5+ R REC+ or PET5T5+ R CERT5RAR5 The general rule i$ that, in order to gi#e the lo&er court the o''ortunity to correct it$elf, a motion for recon$ideration i$ a 'rere%ui$ite to certiorari. 5t i$ al$o *a$ic that a 'etitioner mu$t e6hau$t all other a#aila*le remedie$ *efore re$orting to certiorari. Thi$ rule, ho&e#er, i$ $u*9ect to certain e6ce'tion$ $uch a$ any of the follo&ing () the i$$ue$ rai$ed are 'urely legal in nature, (<) 'u*lic intere$t i$ in#ol#ed, (=) e6treme urgency i$ o*#iou$
or () $'ecial circum$tance$ &arrant immediate or more direct action.0 5t i$ 'atently clear that the regulation or admini$tration of educational in$titution$, e$'ecially on the tertiary le#el, i$ in#e$ted &ith 'u*lic intere$t. !ence, the ha$te &ith &hich the $olicitor general rai$ed the$e i$$ue$ *efore the a''ellate court i$ under$tanda*le. or the rea$on mentioned, &e rule that re$'ondent$ Petition for Certiorari did not re%uire 'rior re$ort to a motion for recon$ideration. VA15D5T7 DEA41T RDER Certiorari &a$ the only 'lain, $'eedy and ade%uate remedy in the ordinary cour$e of la&, *ecau$e the default rder had im'ro#idently *een i$$ued. 1ina #. Court of A''eal$ di$cu$$ed the remedie$ a#aila*le to a defendant declared in default, a$ follo&$ () a motion to $et a$ide the order of default under 2ection =(*), Rule / of the Rule$ of Court, if the default &a$ di$co#ered *efore 9udgment could *e rendered; (<) a motion for ne& trial under 2ection (a) of Rule =, if the default &a$ di$co#ered after 9udgment *ut &hile a''eal i$ $till a#aila*le; (=) a 'etition for relief under Rule =-, if 9udgment ha$ *ecome final and e6ecutory; and () an a''eal from the 9udgment under 2ection , Rule , e#en if no 'etition to $et a$ide the order of default ha$ *een re$orted to. The$e remedie$, ho&e#er, are a#aila*le only to a defendant &ho ha$ *een #alidly declared in default. 2uch defendant irre'ara*ly lo$e$ the right to 'artici'ate in the trial. n the other hand, a defendant im'ro#idently declared in default may retain and e6erci$e $uch right after the order of default and the $u*$e%uent 9udgment *y default are annulled, and the ca$e remander to the court of origin. The former i$ limited to the remedy $et forth in 2ection <, 'aragra'h = of Rule of the 're // Rule$ of Court, and can therefore conte$t only the 9udgment *y default on the de$ignated ground that it i$ contrary to e#idence or la&. The latter, ho&e#er, ha$ the follo&ing o'tion$ to re$ort to thi$ $ame remedy; to inter'o$e a 'etition for certiorari $ee3ing the nullification of the order of default, e#en *efore the 'romulgation of a 9udgment *y default; or in the e#ent that 9udgment ha$ *een rendered, to ha#e $uch order and 9udgment declared #oid. 5n 'rohi*iting a''eal$ from interlocutory order$, the la& doe$ not intend to accord e6ecutory force to $uch &rit$, 'articularly &hen the effect &ould *e to cau$e irre'ara*le damage. 5f, in the cour$e of trial, a 9udge 'roceed$ &ithout or in e6ce$$ of 9uri$diction, thi$ rule 'rohi*iting an a''eal doe$ not lea#e the aggrie#ed 'arty &ithout any remedy.- 5n a ca$e li3e thi$, a $'ecial ci#il action of certiorari i$ the 'lain, $'eedy and ade%uate remedy. RAVE AB42E D52CREAT5+ The trial court gra#ely a*u$ed it$ di$cretion &hen it declared re$'ondent in default de$'ite the latter$ filing of an An$&er. Placing re$'ondent in default thereafter $er#ed no 'ractical 'ur'o$e. PRE115M5+AR7 5+84+CT5+ The trial court acted &ith gra#e a*u$e of di$cretion in i$$uing the :rit of Preliminary 5n9unction again$t re$'ondent. Petitioner failed to e$ta*li$h a clear right to continue re're$enting it$elf to the 'u*lic a$ a uni#er$ity. 5ndeed, it ha$ no #e$ted right to mi$re're$ent it$elf. Before an in9unction can *e i$$ued, it i$ e$$ential that () there mu$t *e a right in e$$e to *e 'rotected, and (<) the act again$t &hich the in9unction i$ to *e directed mu$t ha#e #iolated $uch right. +o $chool may claim to *e a uni#er$ity unle$$ it ha$ fir$t com'lied &ith the 'rere%ui$ite$ 'ro#ided in 2ection = of the Manual of Regulation$ for Pri#ate 2chool$. 2ection =, Rule ?- of the Rule$ of Court, limit$ the grant of 'reliminary in9unction to ca$e$ in &hich the 'laintiff i$ clearly entitled to the relief 'rayed for.
