9 - DECS-Sec Cario vs. Judge Capulong TTL G
In order to thwart the closure or padlocking of its school in Davao
Petitioners: HON. ISIDRO CARIO, substituted by HON. ARMANDO V.
FABELLA, Secretary of Education, Culture and Sports, and VENANCIO R.
NAVA, Regional Director, DECS Region IX, Davao City
Respondents: HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, Presiding Judge of RTC-
Makati, Br. 134 and AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE, INC., Davao City and
AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE
FACTS:
1. AMA College sent Regional Director Nava its letter of intent to
operate as an educational institution in Davao.
2. On May 21, 1990, Nava responded to letter reminding AMA
a. that the filing of the app shall be at least 1 year before
opening of classes. and
b. provisions of the Private School Law (reiterated in
Educational Act 1992) prohibits the operation of
unauthorized schools of course
3. AMA completely ignored Navas directives and continued, not only its
enrollment, but also held regular classes.
4. It was only on June 15, 1990 that AMA filed a formal application to
operate.
5. Acknowledging the receipt of the app, Nava reiterated its previous
directive ( in #2) to stop operation with a warning that further failure
to comply would contrain the Office (DECS) to invoke the
Memorandum Agreement with the Defense Department to stop the
unlawful operation of the school.
6. AMA again ignored the warning.
7. After a DECS inspection of AMA, it was confirmed that AMA was in
defiance of the directives.
8. Nava then requested military assistance for AMAs closure.
9. AMAs Officer in charge requested that the closure be held in
abeyance for 15 days while waiting for the decision of DECS-Sec
[Carino] on its application for a permit to operate.
10. Nava rejected the request. Carino also denied AMAs application
11. On 6 July 1990, AMA filed with the RTC of Manila, Branch 18, a
petition for prohibition, certiorari and mandamus against Carino and
Nava to annul and set aside the closure order and to enjoin the them
from closing or padlocking AMACC, Davao.
12. TC: dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
13. CA: peremptorily dismissed the petition and also denied its motion
for reconsideration.
14. Under the cloak of an organization of parents of students styling
themselves as AMACC-PARENTS Organization, AMA filed another
petition for prohibition and/or mandamus with preliminary injunction
with the RTC of Davao City - the court also dismissed the petition.
15.
City, AMA filed with the RTC of Makati, Capulong, another petition for
mandamus, with damages, preliminary injunction and/or restraining
order Carino et al and to compel them to approve AMA's application
for permit to operate retroactive to the commencement of school
year 1990-1991,
16. Carino et al, through the OSG, moved to dismiss AMA's petition on
the ground that
a. AMA is not entitled to the writ of mandamus as DECS's
authority to grant or deny the permit to operate is
discretionary and not ministerial; [this is whats relevant to
topic]
b. AMA failed to comply with the provisions of the Education
Act;
c. AMA is blatantly engaging in forum shopping;
d. AMA failed to exhaust available administrative remedies
before resorting to court; and
e. lack of territorial jurisdiction over petitioner Regional Director
and AMA-Davao.
17. Capulong issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction, the dispositive portion of which reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing reasons, let a writ of
preliminary injunction be issued, upon filing of petitioners of a bond in
the amount of P500,000.00, duly approved by this Court, enjoining
and restraining the respondent Hon. Isidro Carino, his agents,
representatives and any person acting for and his behalf, from
implementing the closing and/or padlocking AMA Computer College,
Inc. - Davao City Branch, until further orders from this Court.
18. The writ of preliminary injunction was issued the following day.
19. Prompting Carino et al to file the current petition, claiming that
Capulong acted with GADELEJ in issuing the writ.
ISSUE: Is the authority to grant permit by DECS to applicant educational
institution a ministerial duty or discretionary duty? DISCRETIONARY.
Petition granted
HELD: As a rule, mandamus will lie only to compel an officer to perform a
ministerial duty but not a discretionary function. A ministerial duty is one,
which is so clear and specific as to leave no room for the exercise of
discretion in its performance. On the other hand, a discretionary duty is that
which by nature requires the exercise of judgment.
As explained in the case of Symaco vs. Aquino,
A purely ministerial act or duty to a discretional act, is one which an officer or
tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to or the exercise
of his own judgment, upon the propriety of the act done. If the law imposes a
duty upon a public officer, and gives him the right to decide how or when the
duty shall be performed, such duty is ministerial only when the discharge of
the same requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor judgment.
In the case at bar, the issuance of the permit is not a ministerial duty of the
DECS. DECS is authorized either to impose the total closure of a school
and/or to disqualify the school from conferring title or degree in the non-
recognized program or course of studies.
It is a discretionary duty or function because it had to be exercised in
accordance with and not in violation of the law and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations.BP 232 governs the establishment or recognition of
private schools through government grant of permits is governed by law. The
authority to grant permit is vested upon the judgment of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, which prescribes the rules and regulations
governing the recognition on private schools (Section 27, BP 232).
AMA had been operating a school without a permit in blatant violation of law.
Since DECS has no ministerial duty to issue the contested permit, Capulong
was in GAD when he issued the injuction.
Carino et al won.