PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Injunction is the strong arm of equity; thus, he who avails it must come to court with clean
hands

Jenosa et al. (petitioners-student and parents) vs Delariarte and Vergara (respondents-

HS Principal and President, respectively, of University of San Agustin [USA])

FACTS: On November 22, 2002, some students of the University of San Agustin were
caught engaging in hazing outside the school premises, among them were petitioner
students Jenosa, Canto, Apalisok, Vargas and Duro. Consultations were made between
the students and their parents, and the school authority. Instead of them being found
guilty of hazing it was agreed, as confirmed by the parents signature on the minutes of
the meeting, that the initiators of the hazing would just transfer to another school.
Those who acted as neophytes will be suspended for a month. Hence, the incident was
no longer endorsed to the Committee on Student Discipline for investigation. Later, the
petitioners sent a letter to the president of USA praying not to implement the agreement
because the principal ordered the immediate transfer of the students without the COSD
convening. Petitioners also sent a letter to DEPED requesting for assistance and praying
that the students be allowed to take home study program instead of transferring to
another school. Respondents were required to comment as such they did to which they
attached the minutes containing the agreement.
The following year the petitioners filed a complaint for injunction with damages
to RTC Branch 29 of Iloilo City alleging that they were deprived of due process when
the principal ordered the transfer of the students without the COSD convening. The
RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction directing the respondents to admit the
students. The respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of jurisdiction
and alleging that the petitioners were guilty of forum shopping (denied). A subsequent
complaint for mandatory injunction was filed by the petitioners for the release of the
cards and other credentials of the students, which was granted. Meanwhile, the COSD
conducted an investigation finding the petitioners guilty of hazing. Respondents filed a
SCA for Certiorari before the CA. It was granted. CA held that the TC did not acquire
jurisdiction for prematurely interfering with the educational institutions inherent
authority to discipline.
ISSUE: Whether the TC acquired jurisdiction over the case
HELD: No, the TC did not acquire jurisdiction. 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 28 November 2002
agreement. The TC acted prematurely in the interfering in with the schools authority,
thus, it acquired no jurisdiction. Having acquired no jurisdiction, the issuances of the
writs are not proper. On the other hand, the agreement above is the reason why the
COSD did not convene anymore but then petitioners reneged on their agreement
without any justifiable reason. Petitioners, having reneged on their agreement without
any justifiable reason, are considered to have come to court with unclean
hands. Therefore, the Court may deny a litigant relief if his conduct has been
inequitable, unfair and dishonest as to the controversy in issue.