Cariño v. Capulong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Ama Computer College (AMA) entered into a "Contract of Lease with Option to Buy" with Light Bringer School (LBS) and took possession of its premises. AMA expressed its intent to operate as an educational institution in Davao City. The DECS Regional Director reminded AMA of the requirement to file applications at least one year before opening classes and warned against operating unauthorized schools. Despite this, AMA proceeded to announce its opening, enroll students, and commence classes. The DECS Regional Director directed AMA to stop enrollment and desist from operating without prior authorization. AMA ignored the directive and filed a formal application only after commencing operations. The DECS Regional Director reiterated the directive to stop operations, warning of military assistance for closure. AMA requested a 15-day hold, which was denied. The Secretary of DECS denied AMA's application for a permit to operate. Procedural History: AMA filed several petitions: (a) with the RTC of Manila, Branch 18, for prohibition, certiorari, and mandamus to annul the closure order, which was dismissed. A subsequent petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was also dismissed. (b) A petition was filed with the RTC of Davao City, Branch 8, by parents' organizations, which was also dismissed. (c) AMA filed another petition with the RTC of Makati, Branch 134, for mandamus, damages, preliminary injunction, and/or restraining order, seeking to compel the approval of its permit to operate retroactively and to enjoin the closure of its school. The Petition: Petitioners (Hon. Isidro Cariño, substituted by Hon. Armando V. Fabella, and Venancio R. Nava) filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction to annul and set aside the order of respondent Judge dated November 15, 1990, and the writ of preliminary injunction issued pursuant to it on November 16, 1990. They argued that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. Whether a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued to restrain the closure of an educational institution operating without a permit; and whether AMA had an existing right to be protected. Whether the issuance of a permit to operate an educational institution is a ministerial or discretionary duty; and whether the respondent Judge should have compelled the DECS to issue a permit through a writ of mandamus.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The order dated November 15, 1990, and the writ of preliminary injunction dated November 16, 1990, are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The petition for mandamus before the respondent court is DISMISSED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued by the Supreme Court is made PERMANENT.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction: The respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. A writ of preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy to protect or preserve rights, and requires a clear showing of a right to be protected and that the acts against which the writ is directed are violative of that right. In this case, AMA did not have a permit to operate, and therefore, did not possess any existing right that needed protection. Consequently, the closure of AMA's school would not violate any right of AMA. Moreover, it is not the function of a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain a public officer from performing a duty imposed by law or to permit the doing of that which is declared unlawful. The DECS was performing its duty under Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 by ordering the closure of an illegally operating school. On the right to be protected and the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction: The respondent Judge reasoned that AMA needed protection from irreparable damage. However, the mere possibility of irreparable damage, without proof of an actually existing right, is not a ground for an injunction, being a mere damnum absque injuria. Since AMA was operating without a permit, it had no existing right to be protected by a preliminary injunction against closure. On the nature of the duty to issue a permit and the propriety of mandamus: The action filed by AMA was a petition for mandamus to compel the petitioners to approve its application for a permit to operate. Mandamus lies only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary function. The issuance of a permit to operate an educational institution is not a ministerial duty but a discretionary one, as it must be exercised in accordance with the law and its implementing rules and regulations. The DECS has the authority to grant or deny permits based on prescribed standards and regulations. Therefore, the respondent Judge should not have compelled the DECS to issue a permit through a writ of mandamus, especially when AMA was operating in blatant violation of the law.
Main Doctrine
A writ of preliminary injunction cannot be issued to restrain a public officer from performing a duty imposed by law, nor to permit the doing of that which is declared unlawful. Furthermore, mandamus will not lie to compel an officer to perform a discretionary function.