St. Theresa’s College sued!

[jansome26]

For me the student's lawyer made a brilliant move. Just my opinion.

[tingkagol]

If I were STC, I'd get a really good lawyer. Or perhaps that Balili guy if he's any good. 3 witness accounts of defamation is going to be hard to refute.

[tingkagol]

Also, notice how this isn't about the "unfair" sanctions carried out by STC anymore?
It has become "Gee, these sanctions were well justified, but I sure as hell would've hoped you cascaded it to our children and us parents in the MOST CIVIL manner, not crucifying our children with your words!" or something similar.

hahaha. I honestly do not know who'll win this case. Sila ra gyud ang nakahibaw unsay nahitabo sa principal's office.

[onigz]

nasuko daw ang judge sa gibuhat sa STC. naa sa news gniha sa tv. na insulto daw xa sa gibuhat sa skwelahan.

[Zebastian rella]

then unsa na ang buhaton sa judge ani? waiting for the outcome of this case.

[onigz]

ma unsa na kaha ni nga issue sah.. nka basa ko ug comment from the news stated

"it is not invalid (TRO). The counsel of STC, says it was invalid because it fails to provide a bond. But SEc 5Rule 58 of the Rules of Court does not require a bond for the issuance of the TRO,unless expressly required by the Court. Only the issuance of preliminary injunction needs a bond unless exempted by the court. in the instant case, the trial court in issuing the TRO did not require the posting of the bond and thus,it is binding, and immediately executory and non appealable. A motion for reconsideration is not allowed by the rules of court for questioning a TRO. "

tinood ni?

[lazaro4ever]

Im from a Catholic School also and yes its my first time to hear students unable to attend graduation rites aside from having academic problems.

same here. preventive suspension tingli ok ra.

People need to start thinking before obeying whatever righteous people want with our lives.

[wykette]

ma unsa na kaha ni nga issue sah.. nka basa ko ug comment from the news stated

"it is not invalid (TRO). The counsel of STC, says it was invalid because it fails to provide a bond. But SEc 5Rule 58 of the Rules of Court does not require a bond for the issuance of the TRO,unless expressly required by the Court. Only the issuance of preliminary injunction needs a bond unless exempted by the court. in the instant case, the trial court in issuing the TRO did not require the posting of the bond and thus,it is binding, and immediately executory and non appealable. A motion for reconsideration is not allowed by the rules of court for questioning a TRO. "

tinood ni?

if it's not vague then apply it liberally. so yep it is..

plus this legal opinion from Former Executive Judge Meinrado Paredes told the media that the TRO is effective despite having motion for reconsideration filed by the school. “In the absence of a written decision, TRO is effective,” he said. — /NLQ (FREEMAN)

[ReikoChan]

if it's not vague then apply it liberally. so yep it is..

plus this legal opinion from Former Executive Judge Meinrado Paredes told the media that the TRO is effective despite having motion for reconsideration filed by the school. “In the absence of a written decision, TRO is effective,” he said. — /NLQ (FREEMAN)

Mr. Student Lawyer, one quick question. I spoke to someone earlier today about what STC did.

He says a TRO needs to be served first before it can be executed. I don't think it was published in the media that the TRO was served by the sheriffs before the graduation day. He says that STC made use of technicality strategies by being "unreachable" to the sheriffs that carried the order. They did this by barring anyone without an "invitation" from entering the school. He says that the same process goes for other orders like, say, subpoenas. If they can't reach the person in question (say, he's not at home) on the first try, then they will have to come back the next day and try again, until they finally present the order to the person in question. Unless this is done, that order is still not effective, he says. "What STC did was technically legal. Dirty, maybe, but still legal," he says.

How true is this?

[istoryamember]

Mr. Student Lawyer, one quick question. I spoke to someone earlier today about what STC did.

He says a TRO needs to be served first before it can be executed. I don't think it was published in the media that the TRO was served by the sheriffs before the graduation day. He says that STC made use of technicality strategies by being "unreachable" to the sheriffs that carried the order. They did this by barring anyone without an "invitation" from entering the school. He says that the same process goes for other orders like, say, subpoenas. If they can't reach the person in question (say, he's not at home) on the first try, then they will have to come back the next day and try again, until they finally present the order to the person in question. Unless this is done, that order is still not effective, he says. "What STC did was technically legal. Dirty, maybe, but still legal," he says.

How true is this?

nice ni da daghan jud ta makat-onan