UP VS CATUNGAL, JR.
May 5, 1997 (272 SCRA 221)Case: Certiorari and prohibition. For nullification of orders of respondent judges.
:A UP Diliman faculty member is under administrative proceedings in the UP Tribunal forgrave misconduct involving sexual intercourse with minors.
Sec. 3, Rule 58 state the grounds for the grant of preliminary injunction:a) the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of suchrelief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or actscomplained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limitedperiod or perpetually;b) the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant;c) a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, oris procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rightsof the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding and tending torender the judgment ineffectual.
The court must state its own findings of facts and cite the particular law to justify thegrant of preliminary injunction. Since injunction is the strong arm of equity, he whomust apply for it must come with equity or with clean hands. This is so becauseamong the maxims of equity are: 1. He who seeks equity must do equity; 2)he who comes into equity must do equity.
He who has done inequity shall nothave equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief by a court of equity on theground that his conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent ordeceitful as to the controversy in issue.