G.R. No. 168008 ; August 17, 2011
PETRONILO J. BARAYUGA, Petitioner, vs. ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH ITS BOARD OF TRUSTEES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NESTOR D. DAYSON, Respondents.

FACTS

Petronilo J. Barayuga was appointed President of respondent Adventist University of the Philippines (AUP) by its Board of Trustees on January 23, 2001. An external performance audit in November 2002 and a subsequent review by the General Conference Auditing Service (GCAS) in December 2002 revealed that Barayuga committed serious violations of fundamental rules and procedures in the disbursement and use of funds, including autocratic management, making major decisions without committee approval, and making withdrawals and reimbursements without valid receipts or Finance Committee approval. After being informed of the findings and required to explain, Barayuga presented his written and oral explanations to the Board of Trustees in a special meeting on January 22, 2003. The Board adjourned to deliberate further. In a subsequent special meeting on January 27, 2003, the Board, by secret ballot, voted to remove Barayuga as President due to the audit findings, appointed an interim committee, and recommended him for another position. Barayuga requested reconsideration, which the Board denied after a reconvened meeting on January 28, 2003. On February 4, 2003, Barayuga filed a complaint for injunction and damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging his removal was without valid grounds and in violation of his five-year term and right to due process. The RTC issued a temporary restraining order and later a writ of preliminary injunction, finding the special board meetings invalid due to lack of proper notice under AUP’s By-Laws, that no conflict-of-interest violation occurred, and that Barayuga was denied due process. The Court of Appeals (CA) nullified and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction. Barayuga elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals correctly nullified and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction issued by the RTC.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly nullified and set aside the writ of preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision. The injunctive relief protects only a right in esse (an existing right). Barayuga failed to demonstrate a clear and unmistakable right to be protected. His claim to a five-year term as President was not supported by any board resolution, written contract, or AUP By-Laws provision; his appointment letter did not specify a term. Furthermore, his removal was for a valid cause, as substantiated by the audit reports showing serious violations of financial rules and procedures. The special board meetings that decided his removal were valid. While the By-Laws required written request and notice for special meetings, Barayuga, as Board Secretary, himself prepared the agenda for the January 22 meeting, which included his case, and he actively participated. By doing so, he waived any defect in the call and notice. The Court also found that Barayuga was afforded due process, as he was informed of the charges, given the opportunity to explain both in writing and orally before the Board, and his request for reconsideration was heard and denied. Since Barayuga did not have a clear legal right to the office of President, the RTC gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary injunction. The petition was denied.