7/23/2019 Indiana Aerospace University v Commission on Higher Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/indiana-aerospace-university-v-commission-on-higher-education 1/2

Indiana Aerospace University v Commission On Higher Education, 356 S 367

acts!

• Sometime in 1996, petitioner misrepresented themselves as a“university” in their advertisement in a local newspaper.

• Director Gaduyon talked with the school president “It was eplainedthat there was a violation committed !y his institution when it usedthe term university unless the school had complied with the !asicre"uirement o# !ein$ a university as prescri!ed in %&'D(emorandum )rder *o. +, s. 1996.-

•  s a conse"uence o# said /eport, 0respondent-s 2e$al 3airs Servicewas re"uested to take le$al action a$ainst 0petitioner

o /espondent ordered the petitioner to desist #rom usin$ theterm “university” in any !ranch

o 4revent the petitioner5s S'% re$istration in amendin$ their

articles o# incorporation

• 4etitioner appealed to respondent with a promise to #ollow theprovisions o# %() +

• /espondent reected pets. appeal and ordered the latter to cease anddesist #rom usin$ the word university.

• &owever, prior to that, petitioner 7led a %omplaint #or Dama$es withprayer #or 8rit o# 4reliminary and (andatory Inunction andemporary /estrainin$ )rder a$ainst respondent,

• /espondent 7les #or a motion to dismiss:

o improper venue;

o lack o# authority o# the person institutin$ the action; and

o lack o# cause o# action.• /espondent ud$e denied the motion to dismiss and at the same time

ordered a 8rit o# preliminary inunction in #avor o# petitioner. Inaddition, respondent is ordered to answer within 1< days. &owever,respondent #ailed to answer within reasona!le time and hencedeclared in de#ault.

• /espondent 7led a 4etition #or %ertiorari with the %ourt o# ppeals:

o in denyin$ the #ormer-s (otion to Dismiss,o in issuin$ a 8rit o# 4reliminary Inunction, and

o in declarin$ respondent in de#ault despite its 7lin$ an nswer%: petitioner had no cause o# action

•

#ailed to show any evidence that it had !een $ranted university status!y respondent as re"uired under eistin$ law and %&'D rules andre$ulations

•   certi7cate o# incorporation under an unauthori=ed name does not

con#er upon petitioner the ri$ht to use the word >university> in itsname.

7/23/2019 Indiana Aerospace University v Commission on Higher Education

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/indiana-aerospace-university-v-commission-on-higher-education 2/2

Issue: In $ivin$ due course to respondent %&'D-s 4etition #or %ertiorari7led way !eyond the 6?@day re$lementary period prescri!ed !y Section +,/ule 6< o# the /ules o# %ourt

He"d:

4etition #or certiorari is seasona!ly 7led !ecause the date to !e reckonedwith is the date respondent received the order o# de#ault and not the date o# order. Ho#ever, the order #as not a proper su$%ect o& certiorari or appea" since it #as mere"y an inter"ocutory order'

(atio and )octrine!

 n order denyin$ a motion to dismiss is interlocutory, and so the properremedy in such a case is to appeal a#ter a decision has !een rendered. writo# certiorari is not intended to correct every controversial interlocutoryrulin$; it is resorted to only to correct a $rave a!use o# discretion or awhimsical eercise o# ud$ment e"uivalent to lack o# urisdiction. Its #unctionis limited to keepin$ an in#erior court within its urisdiction and to relievepersons #rom ar!itrary actsAacts which courts or ud$es have no power orauthority in law to per#orm. It is not desi$ned to correct erroneous 7ndin$sand conclusions made !y the court.

In the case at !ar, we 7nd no $rave a!use o# discretion in the /%-s denial o# the (otion to Dismiss, as contained in the u$ust 1+, 199 )rder. he % erred in rulin$ otherwise. he trial court stated in its Decision thatpetitioner was an educational institution, ori$inally re$istered with theSecurities and 'chan$e %ommission as the >Indiana School o# eronautics,Inc.> hat name was su!se"uently chan$ed to >Indiana erospaceBniversity> a#ter the Department o# 'ducation, %ulture and Sports hadinterposed no o!ection to such chan$e.

/espondent issued a #ormal %ease and Desist )rder directin$ petitioner tostop usin$ the word >university> in its corporate name. he #ormer alsopu!lished an announcement in the (arch C1, 199 issue o#  Freeman, a localnewspaper in %e!u %ity, that there was no institution o# learnin$ !y thatname. he counsel o# respondent was "uoted as sayin$ in the (arch C,199 issue o# the newspaper Today  that petitioner had !een ordered closed

!y the respondent #or ille$al advertisement, #raud and misrepresentation o# itsel# as a university. Such acts, accordin$ to the /% undermined thepu!lic-s con7dence in petitioner as an educational institution. his was aclear statement o# a su3icient cause o# action.