Title Calawag vs.

University of the Philippines Visayas and Dean Carlos Baylon

Citation G.R. No. 207412
Date August 7, 2013
Topic Injunction
FACTS Calawag, a graduating student of UP Visayas studying Fisheries Biology, enrolled in the
thesis program filed a petition against Dean Baylon during their thesis planning. They
drafted their potential thesis title and got Dr. Balena's approval to have her serve as
their thesis adviser and a member of the thesis committee. Dean Baylon questioned the
thesis topic's appropriateness, as well as the historical and social dimensions of the
study, which were inappropriate for the petitioner's selected degree program. He later
disapproved the petitioners' thesis committee composition and proposed thesis topics.

Thus, the petitioners filed a petition to the RTC for certiorari and mandamus, requesting
that Dean Baylon accept and constitute the petitioners' thesis committees, as well as
approve their thesis titles. They also requested that the RTC issue a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction against Dean Baylon and compel him to refrain from engaging in
such conduct while the case was pending. Dean Baylon allegedly refused to comply with
the RTC's writ of mandatory preliminary injunction. UP Visayas eventually challenged
this order in the CA via a Rule 65 petition for certiorari, requesting a temporary
restraining order (TRO).

CA issued TRO to RTC’s decision as such can’t compel Dean Baylon to approve their
composition of thesis committees, and the Dean can exercise supervisory authority in
all academic matters.

Thus, Calawag questioned the CA’s decision as he was entitled to his prayer of
injunction which the Dean has violated some of his rights such as right to education,
right to due process, and right to equal protection under the law.
ISSUE WON the right to education invoked by the petitioner can be made the basis for issuing
a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction?
RULING No.
The issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is justified only in a clear
situation, free of ambiguity and controversy. When the complainant's claim is therefore
questionable or disputed, he lacks a clear legal right, and hence the issuance of
injunctive remedy is unlawful. Calawag's right to education cannot be used to obtain a
preliminary mandatory injunction.

The CA did not err in ruling that the petitioners failed to show a clear and unmistakable
right that needs the protection of a preliminary mandatory injunction. Assenting the
CA’s conclusion that the dean has the discretion to approve or disapprove the
composition of a thesis committee, and, hence, the petitioners had no right for an
automatic approval and composition of their thesis committees.
NOTE Preliminary mandatory injunction- is an order granted at any stage of an action or
proceeding prior to the judgment or final order, requiring a party or a court, agency or a
person to refrain from a particular act or acts.
- is an ancillary and interlocutory order issued as a result of an impartial
determination of the context of both parties. It entails a procedure for the judge
to assess whether the reliefs prayed for by the complainant will be rendered
moot simply as a result of the parties' having to go through the full
requirements of a case being fully heard on its merits. Although a trial court
judge is given a latitude of discretion, he or she cannot grant a writ of injunction
if there is no clear legal right materially and substantially breached from a prima
facie evaluation of the evidence of the complainant. Even if this is present, the
trial court must satisfy itself that the injury to be suffered is irreparable.