Merrick Vincent Santos

UNCIANO PARAMEDICAL COLLEGE, INC. (now UNCIANO COLLEGES & GENERAL HOSPITAL, INC.);
MIRANDO C. UNCIANO, SR., DOMINADOR SANTOS AND EDITHA MORA, petitioners,
vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS, Honorable LOURDES K. TAYAO-JAGUROS, in her capacity as Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Manila; ELENA VILLEGAS thru VICTORIA VILLEGAS; and TED MAGALLANES
thru JACINTA MAGALLANES, respondents.

G.R. No. 100335

April 7, 1993.

NOCON, J p

REMEDIAL LAW; PROVISIONAL REMEDIES; PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; PURPOSE. — As to the question on

Facts: 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. Among other things, they
alleged therein that:

They initiated a petition proposing to the school authorities the organization of a student council in the school. They
solicited support of their petition from the student by asking the students to endorse the same with their signatures.
They were able to get at least 180 signatures.

Elena Villegas and a certain student named Solomon Barroa were summoned to the Office of Dr. Moral and were
admonished not to proceed with the proposal because, according to her, the school does not allow and had never
allowed such an organization.

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.

In compliance with an announcement to see the Dean of Nursing, the above-named students met with Dean Vitug
and Dr. Moral who informed them that they would be barred from enrollment for the second semester because they
supposedly harassed a female student, invited an outsider to the school to speak before the students, and also
because the school has an arrangement with the Department of Education, Culture and Sports not to allow their
students to put up a student council. Dr. Moral advised them to get their Honorable Dismissal, and warned them that
if she herself were to give it, it would be marked `expelled.'

The students again approached Dr. Moral who informed them that they were no longer allowed to enroll because
they are allegedly members of the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) and the League of Filipino
Students (LFS), officers of the student organization they organized, and, moreover 'drug addicts.' The students
asked for proof of these accusations but were not given any, and were told by Dr. Moral that the school has people
investigating on them but she did not disclose their identities nor provide any proof to support her allegations.

Petitioners retained the services of counsel FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP (FLAG), counsel sent a letter to
Mr. Mirando Unciano, President of the College, demanding that the constitutional requirements of due process be
complied with prior to unilaterally dismissing the students.

1
Merrick Vincent Santos

Due to the absence of the school's legal counsel and the President who allegedly just arrived from the United
States, Dr. Moral again requested that the meeting be reset. A verbal altercation occurred between the parties due
to the delaying tactics of the school officials and the failure to resolve the problem by their continuous refusal to
discuss the merits of the accusations against the students.

President had unilaterally refused to allow them to enroll and it was up to their parents to request or appeal to the
school officials to change their decision. The Board of Trustees had also refused to grant the parents.

On May 16, 1990, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order effective May 17, 1990, enjoining petitioner
school from not enrolling private respondents in its College of Nursing and setting the hearing for the issuance of the
writ of preliminary injunction on June 4, 1990.

Petitioners filed an opposition to the prayer for a preliminary mandatory injunction on the ground that private
respondents are not entitled thereto and have no clear legal right to the relief demanded.

It is the opinion of the Court that there will be irreparable injury to the petitioners if they are not allowed to enroll. At
least they will miss another semester.

"On the other hand, the injuries mentioned by Dr. Unciano, in particular the withdrawal of the other students and the
school will lose money if the petitioners are allowed to enroll is still a speculation, and may not take place.

In view thereof, the Court hereby GRANTS the petition for issuance of a preliminary mandatory injunction, ordering
the respondents to allow petitioners to enroll for the first semester of school year 1990-1991, upon filing by
petitioners of a bond in the amount of P2,000.00 each.

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration of the Order was denied.

Elevating the matter to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary

Respondent school cannot justify its actions by relying on Paragraph 137 of the Manual of Regulations for Private
School which provides that when a student registers in a school, it is understood that he is enrolling for the entire
semester for collegiate courses,'

Clearly, in no way may Paragraph 137 be construed to mean that the student shall be enrolled for only one
semester, and that after the semester is over his re-enrollment is dependent solely on the sound discretion of the
school. On the contrary, the Manual recognizes the right of the student to be enrolled in his course for the entire
period he is expected to complete it.

On June 3, 1991, the motion for reconsideration was denied, again, for lack of merit. Hence, the present petition.

ISSUE:

Petitioners raise this lone issue:

"WHETHER OR NOT THE NON DOCTRINE SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO GOVERN AND
INVALIDATE THE LEGAL EFFECTS OF INCIDENTS THAT TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO ITS ADOPTION AND
WHICH INCIDENTS WERE PROPER AND VALID. UNDER THE ALCUAZ DOCTRINE PREVAILING AT THE TIME
SAID INCIDENTS TOOK PLACE.

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.. Although
said doctrine was later abandoned in Non, et al. v. Dames II, et al., Settled is the rule that when a doctrine of this

2
Merrick Vincent Santos

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 thereo Thus, the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
was issued by the trial court with grave abuse of discretion.

It is a settled rule that when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine
should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the
faith thereof.

Coming now to the question on the propriety of the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction

The sole object of a preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the
merits of the case can be heard. The status quo is the last actual peaceable uncontested status which preceded the
controversy. It may only be resorted to by a litigant for the preservation or protection of his rights or interests and for
no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action. It should only be granted if the party asking for it is
clearly entitled thereto.

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 1990-1991. Private respondents do not possess any clear legal right to re-enroll,
corollarily, petitioners are not obliged legally to re-admit them.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 7, 1991 and
its resolution dated June 3, 1991 are SET ASIDE. The orders of the trial court dated June 4, 1990 and June 13,
1990 and the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction are likewise SET ASIDE.