Yap Chin Fah v. Court of Appeals

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 90063. December 12, 1989.]

YAP CHIN FAH, ET AL.vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

RESOLUTION

GENTLEMEN, J p:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated December 12, 1989.

"G.R. No. 90063(Yap Chin Fah, et al. v. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.)

Sometime in 1986, private respondent Grace Christian High School ("Grace Christian") applied with the then Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MECS) for a tuition-fee increase of fifteen percent (15%) for the School Year (SY) 1986-87. Private respondent Grace Christian had applied for, and been granted, yearly increments in tuition fee from SY 1973-74 (except for SY 1983-84) until SY 1985-86. On 18 December 1986, Grace Christian received a notice from the MECS that its fee-increase application had been definitively approved on 10 November 1986.

Meanwhile, a group of parents whose children are enrolled in Grace Christian, allegedly alarmed by what they perceived to be deterioration — despite the periodic fee increases — in academic standards and physical facilities of the school, formed the Grace Christian High School Parents-Teachers Association ("Association"). The Association, composed of a majority of the parents (despite its name, no faculty member sits on the executive committee) demanded: (a) recognition as an organization; and (b) representation in Grace Christian's policy-making process, viz., faculty selection and improvement of the physical plant. Feeling that their demands had been largely ignored, the Association in October 1985 asked for a formal dialogue with the school administration. During a heated exchange in this dialogue, one of the petitioners herein, William Tiu, stood up and pointed a finger and shouted at Grace Christian's vice-principal, and later spat on the latter. CDaSAE

On 23 September 1986, Grace Christian had been granted provisional authority by the MECS to impose a fifteen percent (15%) increase in tuition fee for SY 1986-87. Thereupon, some of the above-mentioned group of parents lobbied with the other parents urging non-payment of the fee increase. During the enrollment period for the second semester of SY 1986-87, a number of parents, among them petitioners (comprising nine [9] members or officers of the 19-member executive committee of the Association) refused to pay the incremental fee: Grace Christian in turn refused to receive these parents' payment of regular (i.e., the fee before the fifteen percent [15%] increase) tuition fee for that semester. On 16 December 1986, Grace Christian reminded the parents about the payment of the approved increased tuition fee for the second semester.

From 23 February to 5 March 1987, a group of parents, petitioners included, staged a rally outside the school gates. Banners and placards critical of the school administration were set up. The latent animosity between the Association (or some members thereof) and Grace Christian began to flare-up. Petitioners first came out with statements in the print and broadcast media attacking Grace Christian's periodic fee increases and allegedly deteriorating academic standards. Some of the petitioners, armed with videocameras, forced their way into the school premises and interrupted a class in session, urging students therein to speak — using the allotted class hour — against school policies. Some of the students walked out of their classrooms to join their parents in the rally outside.

On 27 February 1987, the Association through a letter asked Secretary Quisumbing of the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS) to reconsider the 23 September 1986 (as well as the 10 November 1986) order granting the school's application for a fee increase. On 12 March 1987, the Association obtained a "freeze-order" from the DECS, enjoining Grace Christian from imposing the already approved fifteen percent (15%) fee increase, until the DECS shall have received proof that sixty percent (60%) of the increase had been apportioned to salaries of Grace Christian's faculty. After submission of Grace Christian of proof of payment of salary increases to the faculty, the DECS in an Indorsement dated 16 March 1987 lifted the "freeze-order", thereby allowing the school to resume collection of the fifteen percent (15%) fee increase.

Meanwhile, the already adversarial relationship between Grace Christian and the Association further deteriorated when the school administrators overheard several of the Prep (preschool) students chanting slogans against the school and its teachers, indicating that their parents had imbued them with hostility or at least disdain and scorn for the school.

During the period 14-18 April 1987, petitioners were individually and personally informed through a letter by the principal of Grace Christian that, as they were severely critical of the school's policies, it would be best for all concerned if their children enrolled in some other school. On 25 May 1987, the first day of the enrollment period for SY 1987-88, petitioners were informed that as their respective children were in the list of "referral" cases, the school principal would confer with them either in the afternoon of 29 May 1987, the last day of enrollment, or on 30 May 1987. Petitioners felt that their children were being singled out by the school and decided not to see the principal and instead proceeded to the DECS for advise. The DECS in a 1st Indorsement dated 1 June 1987 ordered private respondent School to enroll petitioners' children. The latter however refused to enroll these students, prompting petitioners, to file an action for mandamus in court. The trial court on 11 June 1987, to maintain the status quo between the parties, ordered the temporary enrollment of petitioners' children. DSEaHT

On 1 July 1987, the trial court issued a preliminary writ of mandatory injunction against Grace Christian, commanding it to allow enrollment of petitioners' children.

On 26 June 1989, the Court of Appeals set aside the order granting the writ, and lifted the writ of preliminary injunction. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied.

On 28 September 1989, the Court issued a status duo order, enjoining the parties to maintain the situation existing before the decision of the Court of Appeals was rendered.

Deliberating on the instant Petition for Certiorari, the Court considers that petitioners have failed to show grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals in setting aside, in CA-G.R. SP No. 13179, the order of the trial court.

As the Court of Appeals pointed out, petitioners here failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before resorting to court action, as they had failed to: (a) see the principal of Grace Christian on 29 May 1987, their scheduled conference date; (b) wait for the resolution of the letter of reconsideration/clarification of 1st Indorsement dated 1 June 1987 filed by Grace Christian with the DECS Assistant Regional Director; and (c) appeal to the DECS Secretary to finally resolve their disagreements with Grace Christian, the right to appeal from the decision of a subordinate officer to a superior one constituting "a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law" within the meaning of the Rules of Court. The Education Act of 1982 vests in the DECS the primary authority to hear and resolve disputes by and among members of the educational community similar to those between petitioners and Grace Christian.

Moreover, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction lies only when the right sought to be enforced is clear, unmistakable and indubitable (Rivera v. Florendo, 144 SCRA 643 [1986]). In the instant case, no such clear right was shown. It is true that private schools — not unlike public utilities and other private corporations whose businesses impinge on the public interest — are subject to reasonable regulation and supervision of the State (Const., Art. XIV [4] [1]). At the same time, however, private schools have the right to establish reasonable rules and regulations for the admission, discipline and promotion of students. This right to establish and enforce reasonable rules and regulations extends as well to parents and parent-teacher associations, as parents are under a social and moral (if not legal) obligation, individually and collectively, to assist and cooperate with the schools. In the instant case, since petitioners have failed to comply with the conditions and prerequisites for admission, i.e., registration within the prescribed dates, payment of duly-approved tuition fees, and compliance with school rules and regulations, Grace Christian cannot be regarded as having acted arbitrarily or capriciously in refusing to re-enroll petitioners' children.

In any event, the trial court itself in its Order dated 9 June 1989 had considered the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued in July 1987 as moot and academic, as petitioners' children have already finished their elementary course (some have even completed the secondary course). Under the DECS regulations, enrolment in the secondary course, a course of study different from the elementary course, requires prior issuance of admission slips by the school concerned. (Regional Trial Court's Order dated 9 June 1989; Rollo, pp. 352-353). AcTDaH

Lastly, where relations between parents and students on the one hand, and teachers and administrators upon the other hand, have deteriorated to the level here exhibited, a private school may, in the interest of the rest of the student body and of the faculty and management as a whole, and of the children of the parents affected, require the affected children to be enrolled elsewhere. The maintenance of a morally conducive and orderly educational environment will be seriously imperilled if, under the circumstances of this case, Grace Christian is forced to admit petitioners children and to reintegrate them to the student body. It may be even be argued that petitioners' children have been innocent victims in a deplorable confrontation between some parents and respondent School, but the situation here finds some analogy in labor cases where, because of pre-existing and supervening strained relations, reinstatement is not always a feasible solution.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS the Petition for lack of merit. However, the children here affected shall be allowed to finish the current school year (including the summer term, if any), as the questioned Order of the Court of Appeals shall take effect only as of the beginning of SY 1990-91."

Padilla, J., took no part.

Gutierrez, Jr., J., is on official leave.

Very truly yours,

DANIEL T. MARTINEZClerk of Court