Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Nciano Paramedical College, Inc v. CA
Nciano Paramedical College, Inc v. CA
SYLLABUS
DECISION
NOCON, J : p
On April 16, 1990, private respondents Elena Villegas and Ted Magallanes, thru
their mothers, Victoria Villegas and Jacinta Magallanes, respectively, filed
before the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 21, a
petition for injunction and damages with prayer for a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction against petitioners Unciano Paramedical College, Inc.
(now Unciano Colleges and General Hospital, Inc.), Mirando C. Unciano, Sr.,
Dominador Santos, Editha Mora, Dr. Evelyn Moral and Laureana Vitug, docketed
as Civil Case No. 90-52745. Among other things, they alleged therein that: cdphil
"6.03. On September 12, 1989, when news leaked out that the
above-named students would be barred from enrollment, they sought
confirmation with respondent Dr. Moral, Dean of Discipline, who told
them 'it's not true unless you violate the rules and regulations of the
school and if you still insist with your student council.'
On June 11. 1990, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was issued. 5
On June 13, 1990, petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the Order of June 4,
1990 was denied. 6
Elevating the matter to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with preliminary injunction, the same was dismissed on February 7,
1991 for lack of merit. 7 Said the court:
"The arguments advanced in support of the petition are mainly
anchored on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ALCUAZ,
et al. vs. Philippine School of Business Administration, Quezon City
Branch (PSBA), et al., L-76353, May 2, 1988; 161 SCRA 7 where it was
held that —
'It is beyond dispute that a student once admitted by the school is
considered enrolled for one semester. It is provided in Paragraph 137
(of the) Manual of Regulations for Private Schools, that when a college
student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the
entire semester. Likewise, it is provided in the Manual, that the 'written
contracts' required for college teachers are for 'one semester.' It is thus
evident that after the close of the first semester, the PSBA-QC no
longer has any existing contract either with the students or with the
intervening teachers . . .
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
"However, in the more recent case of Ariel Non, et al. vs. Hon. Sancho
Dames II, et al., G.R. No. 89317, May 20, 1990 (185 SCRA 523), the
Supreme Court, abandoned and overruled its decision in Alcuaz and
declared thus:
The Court, in Alcuaz , anchored its decision on the
'termination of contract' theory. But it must be repeatedly
emphasized that the contract between the school and the
student is not an ordinary contract. It is imbued with public
interest, considering the high priority given by the Constitution to
education and the grant to the State of supervisory and
regulatory powers over all educational institutions [See Art. XIV,
Secs. 1-2, 4(1).] LexLib
On June 3, 1991, the motion for reconsideration was denied, again, for lack of
merit. 9 Hence, the present petition. LibLex
Petitioners argue that under the then prevailing Alcuaz doctrine which was
promulgated on May 2, 1988, the contract between them and private
respondents was validly terminated upon the end of the first semester of
school year 1989-1990. Although said doctrine was later abandoned in Non, et
al. v. Dames II, et al., supra, this case was promulgated much later, or on May
20, 1990, when the termination of the contract between them had long become
fait accompli. Settled is the rule that when a doctrine of this Court is overruled
and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine is applied prospectively, and
should not apply to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith
thereof, conformably with the case of People v. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, 55
SCRA 607 (1974). Thus, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
issued by the trial court with grave abuse of discretion.
The ruling in the Non case should not be given a retroactive effect to cases that
arose before its promulgation on May 20, 1990, as in this case, which was filed
on April 16, 1990. If it were otherwise, it would result in oppression to
petitioners and other schools similarly situated who relied on the ruling in the
Alcuaz case, promulgated on May 2, 1988, which recognized the termination of
contract theory. We had an opportunity to resolve a similar issue in National
Service Corporation, et al. v. NLRC. 11 In this case, petitioner claimed that as a
government corporation (by virtue of its being a subsidiary of the National
Investment and Development Corporation, a subsidiary wholly owned by the
Philippine National Bank, which in turn is a government owned corporation), the
terms and conditions of employment of its employees are governed by the civil
service law, rules and regulations. In support thereof, petitioner cited the ruling
in National Housing Corporation v. Juco, 12 that employees of government
owned or controlled corporations are governed by the civil service law, rules
and regulations, we rejected this claim of petitioner and held that:
"It would appear that, in the interest of justice, the holding in said case
should not be given retroactive effect, that is, to cases that arose
before its promulgation on 17 January 1985. To do otherwise would be
oppressive to Credo and other employees similarly situated, because
under the same 1973 Constitution but prior to the ruling in National
Housing Corporation vs. Juco, this Court had recognized the
applicability of the Labor Code to, and the authority of the NLRC to
exercise jurisdiction over, disputes involving terms and conditions of
employment in government-owned or controlled corporations, among
them, the National Service Corporation (NASECO)." 13
Coming now to the question on the propriety of the issuance of the writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction, the case of Capitol Medical Center, Inc., et al.
v. Court of Appeals, et al. 14 discussed exhaustively the purpose in issuing said
writ: cdphil
In the present case, the contract between the parties was validly terminated
upon the end of the first semester of school year 1989-1990, or in October,
1989. This is the status quo. The trial court gravely abused its discretion in
issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction which ordered
petitioners to allow private respondents "to enroll for the first semester of
school year 1990-1190." 16 Guided by the Capitol case, certainly, this writ
will not restore the status quo but will go a step backward, then restore the
condition preceding the status quo. Private respondents do not possess any
clear legal right to re-enroll, corollarily, petitioners are not obliged legally to
re-admit them. prcd
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Padilla, Regalado and Campos, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Footnotes