St. Theresa’s College sued!

[shebacs]

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?

Wa diay na-serve ang TRO katong pagka March 29, 2012?

So katong pag-adto sa Sheriff pagka March 30, 2012 in the afternoon, 2 pm (one hour before the graduation rites time ba and kuyog sa four girls and their parents?), mao pa to ang pag-serve sa TRO?

Toinks.

Hinoon nagfile og case against STC kay four days before graduation rites man. Two days after ang TRO. (Mga three days na nilabay)

Nya unsa diay tong motion for appeal nga gihimo sa STC? Pwede ba sila mo-appeal kung wala pa sila kadawat sa TRO?

Wa man sad nadawat sa judge ang appeal kay naa man sya appointment sa Lapu-Lapu. Taga-Lapu-Lapu man sad tong inahan sa girl nga ni-file sa case no? Its a small world after all.

[istoryamember]

mao pud bitaw unta ni ako i-raise nga question either ang sheriff nagdala ug copy sa TRO (meaning naa nay gipadala on March 29) or mao pa jud to ang pag serve? Abi nako ug naay gipadala march 29 then since gahi ang stc mao ni adto ang sheriff then nag bring ug copy.

[kimleeKINO_choi]

la lisod ba diay ani..para nako diba personal stuffs nman to sa student? for me lang out nman cgro ang skol ato not unless ng uniform sila ga picture2 then ga ilis daun..mga ingn ana ba. but nabasahan pd lgi ko stc issued a statement that being a theresian is 24/7.

[shebacs]

mao pud bitaw unta ni ako i-raise nga question either ang sheriff nagdala ug copy sa TRO (meaning naa nay gipadala on March 29) or mao pa jud to ang pag serve? Abi nako ug naay gipadala march 29 then since gahi ang stc mao ni adto ang sheriff then nag bring ug copy.

Mao sab na akong nasabtan, Gipalugpit lang ba sa mailbox or rehas sa gate ang TRO pagka March 29, 2012.

Kung wala diay ni-serve eh, wala diay problema para sa STC. Ang kana na lang kaso nga bag-ong gipasaka na sab sa ila.

[tingkagol]

Nagtuo siguro sila na basta ang headline sa news "Cebu Court Lets 2 Students Attend Graduation Rites" okay na. Ang TRO gi-serve sa newspaper. :P

Nya unsa diay tong motion for appeal nga gihimo sa STC? Pwede ba sila mo-appeal kung wala pa sila kadawat sa TRO?

Mao pud na ang pangutana. Nahibaw-an naman gyud siguro to sa STC pero nagpabuta2x ra pud siguro to sila. Wala gyud ta kabalo unsay nahitabo anang bahin sa TRO. But judging from the words of the servers, murag nakalusot gyud ang STC. Dili naman nila i-pursue ang pag-charge sa STC for not fulfilling the TRO, di ba? Samok na kuno kaayo.

[onigz]

so meaning ani ngpa buta buta nalang ang stc about sa TRO?

[shebacs]

Nagtuo siguro sila na basta ang headline sa news "Cebu Court Lets 2 Students Attend Graduation Rites" okay na. Ang TRO gi-serve sa newspaper. :P


Mao pud na ang pangutana. Nahibaw-an naman gyud siguro to sa STC pero nagpabuta2x ra pud siguro to sila. Wala gyud ta kabalo unsay nahitabo anang bahin sa TRO. But judging from the words of the servers, murag nakalusot gyud ang STC. Dili naman nila i-pursue ang pag-charge sa STC for not fulfilling the TRO, di ba? Samok na kuno kaayo.

so meaning ani ngpa buta buta nalang ang stc about sa TRO?

Guessing-guessing lang ha,

March 27, 2012 = filing of the case in the sala of Judge Navarro
March 29, 2012 = TRO issued but still to be serve (can you serve a TRO at night? or during office hours?)
March 30, 2012 = TRO was to be served pero wala sila naka-atubang sa STC administration / wa pasudla / no id = no entry / no ticket = no entry

Baka STC was already expecting the TRO on the 29th pero wala gihatod. Still nangadto pag-morning (?) on the 30th ang abogado para sa appeal bisag wala pa na-serve ang TRO, although wala ang judge. Timing wala ang judge.

Now kung nahatod pag 29 IN THE AFTERNOON, naa possibility mo-concede ang STC nga papasohon ang mga girls kay wala ma'y modawat sa appeal nila pagka-MORNING of the 30th.

And kung katong AFTERNOON of the 30th ang pag-serve sa TRO, and kay wala ma'y nidawat sa appeal sa MORNING of the 30th, then good strategy from STC not to allow the sheriff to go inside their premises para dili nila madawat ang TRO.

Hmmm, this is getting exciting.

Round 2 = check!

Round 3, STC namely Sr. Pe vs the three girls

[tingkagol]

Ila naman nang ilubong ang caso bahin sa TRO. I-focus na nila ang tanan nilang energies sa defamation case vs STC (Pe).

Sa sunod dapat tanang meetings sa principal's office naay audio log para makita gyud ang katag. But since there's no evidence (in my knowledge) about what exactly was said inside the office, they may resort to ad hominems- looking at Sister Pe's reputation as a scolder/disciplinarian whether appropriate or borderline abusive, as well as the children's trustworthiness/integrity. Labad sa ulo basta batasan ang hisgotan instead of what was actually said.

[ReikoChan]

mao pud bitaw unta ni ako i-raise nga question either ang sheriff nagdala ug copy sa TRO (meaning naa nay gipadala on March 29) or mao pa jud to ang pag serve? Abi nako ug naay gipadala march 29 then since gahi ang stc mao ni adto ang sheriff then nag bring ug copy.

Your guess is as good as mine. If I am not mistaken, the media mentioned nothing about the serving of the TRO since this is too much of a legal technicality already. But I guess because of the turn of events, it matters now.

@shebacs
Previous news reports have mentioned that STC filed a motion for reconsideration on the TRO. We don't really know for sure if they've already received the then-issued TRO on that day already. But we can assume that they did because, of course, STC is not going to file an MOR for a TRO based on hearsay. They weren't heard by the court the next day(graduation day), and they've also said that this was one of the reasons why they refused to acknowledge the TRO.

But this link supports the claims of the students' lawyers that a TRO cannot be interrupted or delayed by filing an MOR:
PROCEDURE IN THE SUPREME COURT

So the question now is: When exactly was the TRO made effective? Upon its completion or upon the moment it was served? If the answer is the latter, when was it served?

[tingkagol]

Tan-aw nako nipalag gyud sila sa TRO issued by the court. Ila pud to. Wrong move, to be honest. Perhaps prideful ra pud kaayo ang STC nga bawi-on ang sanction re the graduation rites, pero court order naman gud to. Dapat tunlon nalang ang garbo ug tumanon nalang.