Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 57 views

    Petronilo J. Barayuga V. Adventist University of The Philippines G.R. No. 168008 August 17, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Nelia Mae S. Villena
    Petronilo Barayuga filed a suit for injunction and damages against Adventist University of the Philippines (AUP) alleging he was removed as president without valid grounds. However, AUP claimed he was validly removed for serious violations involving fund disbursement as shown in a special audit. The RTC granted the injunction but the CA reversed, noting Barayuga's term had expired based on AUP's amended by-laws. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, stating the injunction was meant to protect Barayuga's right to remain in office but this became moot as his term had ended, so the petition was not valid and already moot.

    Copyright:

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

    Petronilo J. Barayuga V. Adventist University of The Philippines G.R. No. 168008 August 17, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Nelia Mae S. Villena
    57 views1 page
    Petronilo Barayuga filed a suit for injunction and damages against Adventist University of the Philippines (AUP) alleging he was removed as president without valid grounds. However, AUP claimed he was validly removed for serious violations involving fund disbursement as shown in a special audit. The RTC granted the injunction but the CA reversed, noting Barayuga's term had expired based on AUP's amended by-laws. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, stating the injunction was meant to protect Barayuga's right to remain in office but this became moot as his term had ended, so the petition was not valid and already moot.

    Original Description:

    Cases

    Original Title

    Insurance F 24p

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petronilo Barayuga filed a suit for injunction and damages against Adventist University of the Philippines (AUP) alleging he was removed as president without valid grounds. However, AUP claimed he was validly removed for serious violations involving fund disbursement as shown in a special audit. The RTC granted the injunction but the CA reversed, noting Barayuga's term had expired based on AUP's amended by-laws. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, stating the injunction was meant to protect Barayuga's right to remain in office but this became moot as his term had ended, so the petition was not valid and already moot.

    Copyright:

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

    Petronilo J. Barayuga V. Adventist University of The Philippines G.R. No. 168008 August 17, 2011

    Uploaded by

    Nelia Mae S. Villena
    Petronilo Barayuga filed a suit for injunction and damages against Adventist University of the Philippines (AUP) alleging he was removed as president without valid grounds. However, AUP claimed he was validly removed for serious violations involving fund disbursement as shown in a special audit. The RTC granted the injunction but the CA reversed, noting Barayuga's term had expired based on AUP's amended by-laws. The Supreme Court upheld the CA's ruling, stating the injunction was meant to protect Barayuga's right to remain in office but this became moot as his term had ended, so the petition was not valid and already moot.

    Copyright:

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

    PETRONILO J. BARAYUGA v.

    ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES


    G.R. No. 168008 August 17, 2011

    The injunctive relief protects only a right in esse. Where the plaintiff does not demonstrate that he has
    an existing right to be protected by injunction, his suit for injunction must be dismissed for lack of a
    cause of action.

    Facts

    X filed a suit for injunction and damages in the RTC, impleading Y University alleging the Board had
    relieved him without valid grounds. The Board voted to remove him as President because of his
    serious violations of fundamental rules and procedures in the disbursement and use of funds as
    revealed by the special audit.

    Y denied the allegations of X, and claimed that X had been validly removed for cause and was given
    the opportunity to be heard in his defense. RTC granted the Injunction but was reversed by CA. It
    ruled that the petitioners term of office had expired two years from his appointment, based on Y’s
    amended By-Laws; that, consequently, he had been a mere de facto officer appointed by the members
    of the Board of Trustees; and that he held no legal right warranting the issuance of the writ of
    preliminary injunction.

    Issue

    Is the petition for injunction valid?

    Ruling

    No. Petition is not valid and already moot.

    A valid writ of preliminary injunction rests on the weight of evidence submitted by the plaintiff
    establishing: (a) a present and unmistakable right to be protected; (b) the acts against which the
    injunction is directed violate such right; and (c) a special and paramount necessity for the writ to
    prevent serious damages.

    The injunctive writ issued by the RTC was meant to protect the petitioner’s right to stay in office as
    President. Given that the lifetime of the writ of preliminary injunction was co-extensive with the
    duration of the act sought to be prohibited, this injunctive relief already became moot in the face of
    the admission by the petitioner himself, through his affidavit, that his term of office premised on his
    alleged five-year tenure as President had lasted only until December 2005. In short, the injunctive
    writ granted by the RTC had expired upon the end of the term of office.

    The mootness of the petition warranted its denial.

    You might also like