G.R. No.

172138, September 8, 2010

NELSON JENOSA and his son NIO CARLO JENOSA, SOCORRO CANTO and her
son PATRICK CANTO, CYNTHIA APALISOK and her daughter CYNDY
APALISOK, EDUARDO VARGAS and his son CLINT EDUARD VARGAS, and
NELIA DURO and her son NONELL GREGORY DURO
v.
REV. FR. JOSE RENE C. DELARIARTE, O.S.A., in his capacity as the incumbent
Principal of the High School Department of the University of San Agustin, and the
UNIVERSITY OF SAN AGUSTIN, herein represented by its incumbent
President REV. FR. MANUEL G. VERGARA, O.S.A
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioners children were caught engaging in hazing outside the school
premises and such incident was entered into a blotter by the Iloilo police. Thereafter,
dialogues and consultations were conducted among the school authorities, the parents
and their children. During one of the meetings, it was agreed upon by the school
authorities and parents that instead of launching an investigation for such incident that
may find the students guilty of hazing resulting to their expulsion, they would just
transfer schools. Both parties signed on the minutes of the meetings as proof.
The parents sent a letter to the Universitys president urging the same to not
implement the agreement but the latter ordered the immediate transfer of the students
to other schools. The former also wrote to the school division superintendent of DepEd
to intervene and when asked for a comment the University sent the minutes of the
agreements. It caused the parents to file a complaint of injunction and damages with the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction was
issued. The University filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied then filed
petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals which in turn reversed the decision of the
RTC citing non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. Thus this petition:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals finding that the preliminary injunction was
improperly applied?
HELD:
NO. The Supreme Court stated that since injunction is the strong arm of equity,
he who must apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is so because
among the maxims of equity are (1) he who seeks equity must do equity, and (2) he
who comes into equity must come with clean hands. The latter is a frequently stated
maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he who has done inequity shall not
have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on the
ground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or
deceitful as to the controversy in issue.