GR 174996; (December, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174996 , December 3, 2014
BRO. BERNARD OCA, FSC, BRO. DENNIS MAGBANUA, FSC, MRS. CIRILA MOJICA, MRS. JOSEFINA PASCUAL AND ST. FRANCIS SCHOOL OF GENERAL TRIAS, CAVITE, INC., Petitioners, vs. LAURITA CUSTODIO, Respondent.
FACTS
St. Francis School of General Trias, Cavite, Inc. is a non-stock, non-profit educational institution established in 1973. Its original incorporators and members/trustees were respondent Laurita Custodio, petitioners Cirila Mojica and Josefina Pascual, Rev. Msgr. Feliz Perez, and Bro. Vernon Poore, FSC. After the deaths of Bro. Poore and Msgr. Perez, the remaining three (“Tres Marias”) managed the school. A 1988 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) allowed De La Salle Greenhills (DLSG) to supervise academic affairs, with DLSG-appointed supervisors attending board meetings without voting rights. Eventually, DLSG Brothers Bro. Victor Franco, Bro. Bernard Oca, and Bro. Dennis Magbanua became members and officers of the school’s Board of Trustees. Custodio challenged the validity of their membership and election, alleging they were admitted without formal corporate admission or election. The dispute arose after Custodio opposed a new MOA that would expand DLSG’s control, leading DLSG to withdraw academic support. Mojica and Pascual retired as administrators but remained as trustees. Custodio, as the remaining administrator, made appointments to fill vacancies. The Board subsequently disapproved the retirements and later removed Custodio as a member of the corporation and Board of Trustees, and as Curriculum Administrator. Custodio filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) assailing the Board’s legality and seeking injunctive relief. The RTC issued orders, including one maintaining the “status quo” (the August 21, 2003 Order), which effectively restored Custodio to her former position and directed the turnover of school operations to her. Petitioners challenged the RTC orders via a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition. Petitioners then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari and in upholding the RTC’s orders, particularly the August 21, 2003 Status Quo Order.
RULING
The Supreme Court PARTLY GRANTED the petition. It affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision upholding the RTC’s August 5, 2003 and October 8, 2003 Orders. However, it REVERSED the Court of Appeals with respect to the August 21, 2003 Status Quo Order, which was SET ASIDE for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion.
The Court held that the August 21, 2003 Status Quo Order was a patent nullity. It effectively granted the main prayer for a preliminary injunction without complying with the mandatory requirements under the Rules of Court: a verified application and the posting of a bond. The order altered the status quo by ousting the current school administrators (petitioners) and restoring Custodio to her former position and control of operations, which constituted a mandatory injunction requiring strict compliance with procedural rules. The trial court’s failure to require a bond was a grave abuse of discretion rendering the order void. The Court directed the trial court to resolve Custodio’s application for injunctive relief with dispatch.