St. Theresa’s College sued!

[onigz]

NA UNSA NA MAN INTAWN NING MGA TAO DIRI OI. ANG STC UG ANG PARENTS NAG IYAHAY UG PATAS-ANAY SA ILANG PRIDE ANG MGA NAG POST SA ANI NGA THREAD NAGPATAS-ANAY SADS ILANG MGA PRAYD. GIKAN SA PAGE 1 HANTOD DIRI. HAHAY PINOY. PERO NALINGAW KO ANING MGA PRO STC, GRABE KAAYO NAKA DEFEND SA SCHOOL PAGSUGOD, PERO PAG SUPAK SA TRO UG PAG INHIBIT SA JUDGE, BUHAT DAYON UG MGA THEORIES (BASIN NHADLOK ANG JUDGE, BASIN SAYOP ANG PAG ISSUE UG TRO, BASIN KONSABO ANG JUDGE UG ANG PARENTS) LINGAWA. LAYO NA JUD KAAYO SA MGA NAHITABO.

KANI SAD MGA ANTI STC DI POD PALUPIG, GRABE RA KUNO ANG PUNISHMENT NGA GIHATAG, CGEG BALIK BALIK SA TRO, NAAPIL PA ANG RELIGION UG MGA MADRE,

PAGTSUR MO TANAN OI. SI BALILI RA UG C LACERNA NA DATU ANI. PERO NAA POD COMISSION SI NAVARO. HAHAHAHA

pagxur sad diha bro.. kung naay off topic diri way lain kundi ikaw..

[juknojukno]

simple ra kau na mga pangutana nako ay. ug ang possible nga nahitabo.

1) Kinsa man nag hatag sa lewd pics didto sa STC admin(madre,principal,director and etc) ?
diba one of the friends sa fb sa girl ang naghatag sa pics and it was not mentioned sa STC kinsa ang girl nga naghatag for reasons of security and privacy sa kato girl nga nag hatag.
opinion nako:
- that girl who gave the pics was the first culprit and she has the bad motive
- the principal/STC person invaded the privacy of the minor.

2) If for example ang principal naay tinagoan nga kinky pics of herself but kept it in a secret vault and somebody trespassed her
office/house and got the pics and exposed it sa public. Will that make her a scandalous nun and expelled from the congregation?
- remember her privacy was invaded and the photos were not intended for public.


So last question nako, kinsa man gyud ang ma blame ani tanan?
opinion nako:
- first fault sa principal or whoever invaded the privacy sa minor
- the principal should disclose who gave the lewd pics or else she will be the prime suspect of invading the privacy sa minor.


peace!

[MetalManiac]

that is up to the court to decide,manggawas na man unya tanan ani nig sugod na sa caso,wait and see lang ta ani unsay sangputan ani.but im sure careful na ang uban ani nga di na pataka og post og mga pics.ma aware na ba.

[cliff_drew]

sala lage sa mga students... kahibaw na ta anah.. but can anyone present a statement or a stronger reason for defying the TRO? this is really an insult to our Philippine law.. is it right nga para lang jud ma implement ang sanctions or para lang jud mapanindigan ang rules and regulations sa inyo skul kay dapat ba jud kontrahon ang SUPREME COURT? lage we all know grabe jud ug panindigan sa ilang mga rules ang stc.. but can anyone explain or enlighten me about the TRO issue? unsa man jud ila basis sa pag defy? cge defective man kaha, so if tan-aw nila defective, pwede na diay di ta mosunod ug court order? aw ingon ani na diay ni ang bala-od sa pilipinas?

Prior graduation day and the serving of the TRO, STC said nga mo follow sila unsay decision sa judge. But since they find it nulled/defective, then they defied it. The question of nullity of the TRO is something to look for unless naay lawyer diri nga maka assess nato diri unsa gyud.

obviously, the decision of STC made the parents react
klaro man cguro nga psychological ang epekto sa hatol sa STC
it is indeed INHUMAN and UNCHRISTIAN

STC find their students' acts as unchristian too (though dili inhuman) so either side has their own point.

even if the school rule is disregarding human rights?
academic independence over human rights, as stipulated by a UP Dean, is only for higher education which does not include elementary and High School
STC may be a college but THEY CANNOT implement such rule over activites outside school
BAGA rsab silag LEPS kung ilahang i OVER DO ilahang balaod. Unsa sila? GINOO?

Klaro man sa rules nga drinking and smoking OUTSIDE as well as posing and uploading pictures on the Internet that entail ample body exposure kay violations sa student handbook, kabasa naka?

OI, kanus-a effectivity sa TRO? sa pag-serve?

I'm no lawyer, but as what the clerk of court said a TRO is immediately executory. But wala man ma serve ang TRO since they defied it.

Maayo na to ma-publish ang nalakip sa TRO. Public document naman na di ba? Pwede ka ha mangayo og copy sa RTC? For research purposes lang ba, para mautingkay nato ang mga rason og pahibalo sa paghimo og pag-secure og TRO.

You want glimpse of it?

Well in my knowledge essential gyud ng cash bond before any TRO could take effect even sa case ni former president GMA they paid 2M cash bond as a requirements of the SC TRO in which Sec. De Lima defied, wa pa man gani case si GMA adto 2M na ang bond. Going back to topic... leaving it to sole discretion on this case, what would be the legal basis of that decision?? can you be impartial basing on what you decide rather than what is base on some ruling?

Anyway this TRO issue would not matter anyway... the RTC court aint filing any contempt to STC, plus the Judge ad step out of this case and technically the lawyer of the misbehaving girls wont file any contempt anyway cause its the RTC court rules.

Well this would be a long case for sure.. unless both parties would settle.

According to Rule 58, Sections 4 and 6 of the Rules of Court, a TRO may or may not require a bond and it can be denied/dissolved upon showing of its defficency. Correct me if Im wrong kay gikapoi ko ug digest aning mga balaora.

Section 4. Verified application and bond for preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order. — A preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order may be granted only when:

(a) The application in the action or proceeding is verified, and shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; and

(b) Unless exempted by the court the applicant files with the court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay to such party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the court should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of preliminary injunction shall be issued. (4a)

(c) When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala court, shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined. In any event, such notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously accompanied, by service of summons, together with a copy of the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant's affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines.

However, where the summons could not be served personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily absent therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the requirement of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not apply.

(d) The application for a temporary restraining order shall thereafter be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty-four (24) hours after the sheriff's return of service and/or the records are received by the branch selected by raffle and to which the records shall be transmitted immediately.

Section 6. Grounds for objection to, or for motion of dissolution of, injunction or restraining order. — The application for injunction or restraining order may be denied, upon a showing of its insufficiency. The injunction or restraining order may also be denied, or, if granted, may be dissolved, on other grounds upon affidavits of the party or person enjoined, which may be opposed by the applicant also by affidavits. It may further be denied, or if granted, may be dissolved, if it appears after hearing that although the applicant is entitled to the injunction or restraining order, the issuance or continuance thereof, as the case may be, would cause irreparable damage to the party or person enjoined while the applicant can be fully compensated for such damages as he may suffer, and the former files a bond in an amount fixed by the court conditioned that he will pay all damages which the applicant may suffer by the denial or the dissolution of the injunction or restraining order. If it appears that the extent of the preliminary injunction or restraining order granted is too great, it may be modified. (6a)

Source: Rules of Court

simple ra kau na mga pangutana nako ay. ug ang possible nga nahitabo.

1) Kinsa man nag hatag sa lewd pics didto sa STC admin(madre,principal,director and etc) ?
diba one of the friends sa fb sa girl ang naghatag sa pics and it was not mentioned sa STC kinsa ang girl nga naghatag for reasons of security and privacy sa kato girl nga nag hatag.
opinion nako:
- that girl who gave the pics was the first culprit and she has the bad motive
- the principal/STC person invaded the privacy of the minor.

2) If for example ang principal naay tinagoan nga kinky pics of herself but kept it in a secret vault and somebody trespassed her
office/house and got the pics and exposed it sa public. Will that make her a scandalous nun and expelled from the congregation?
- remember her privacy was invaded and the photos were not intended for public.


So last question nako, kinsa man gyud ang ma blame ani tanan?
opinion nako:
- first fault sa principal or whoever invaded the privacy sa minor
- the principal should disclose who gave the lewd pics or else she will be the prime suspect of invading the privacy sa minor.


peace!

1. Dili ko sure pila but dili man lang usa ra ka girl ang nisumbong. On the other side, there was a speculation nga naay hacking nga nahitabo mao nakit-an ang mga photos wherein private accounts daw ilang fb. But honestly I don't believe the latter. Dili always nga imong fb friends ra ang makakita or makahebaw unsay imong status or ug unsay imong gipang post nga pictures sa imong account. FB POSTS ARE PUBLIC BY DEFAULT. Thus anyone can see and read your posts. Dili na nimo matawag nga naay ni invade sa imong privacy. There's no total privacy in internet.

2. It depends unsay decision sa iyang congregation. Kung maapektahan ang congregation sa iyang binuhatan so naa silay right to expel her.

3. Kinsa man gyud ang ma blame ani tanan?

Personally, ang ma blame ani is ang mga students mismo. It merely started sa ilang gipang post sa fb. It is not a question whether they are wrong or not. Common sense tells you that there will be no wrong if people find it right. For this case, there must be something wrong. Then the domino effect continues. If ako ang parent I would still blame my child for doing such thing. I will not tolerate the situation pero pasabton nako nga not all in our everday lives nindot ang mahitabo. Nga pwede nato ma control tanan, nga pwede nato buhaton unsay atong gusto. Their will be ups and downs. And I will support her on both but mistakes should be learned out of that experience. Accept the penalty if there is for you to become a better you.

[chucki3]

nahuman na jud kog basa. whew!

para nako no, nag minaro ang parents ato by filing a TRO nya na issue pa jud on the day before the graduation...nganong wa mani nahitabo adtong period between March 3 - March 28?

nya ang STC pod nag minaro sad by defying the TRO due to its technicality issues daw.

pero lalilosonon pa kaau ni.

[istoryamember]

ang ako ganahan masabtan is if naay TRO ihatag sa ako-a, then mo ingon ako lawyer nga defective, ma contempt ba ko apil or ako ra lawyer? sayang wala padayon si navarro da. mas daghan unta tag masabtan respect nlang pud ta sa iyang decision. Pero sa ako-a lang, kitang mga uyamot sunod nlang ta TRO kay kita ra ma ipit.

[juknojukno]

1. Dili ko sure pila but dili man lang usa ra ka girl ang nisumbong. On the other side, there was a speculation nga naay hacking nga nahitabo mao nakit-an ang mga photos wherein private accounts daw ilang fb. But honestly I don't believe the latter. Dili always nga imong fb friends ra ang makakita or makahebaw unsay imong status or ug unsay imong gipang post nga pictures sa imong account. FB POSTS ARE PUBLIC BY DEFAULT. Thus anyone can see and read your posts. Dili na nimo matawag nga naay ni invade sa imong privacy. There's no total privacy in internet.

I stand against your opinion that there's no total privacy in the internet. With your statement it means that a person who owns the fb account has already waived his/her privacy rights? No, the fb account is under your name, under your age, under your own password. And you said dili pa gyud sure nga pila kabuok ang nisumbong - that already shows that the evidences and/or witness are invalid.

2. It depends unsay decision sa iyang congregation. Kung maapektahan ang congregation sa iyang binuhatan so naa silay right to expel her.

Ok noted. But will that be justifiable to the person who owns the pic? what about the guy who stole the pics? will he live freely and go unpunished?

3. Kinsa man gyud ang ma blame ani tanan?

Personally, ang ma blame ani is ang mga students mismo. It merely started sa ilang gipang post sa fb. It is not a question whether they are wrong or not. Common sense tells you that there will be no wrong if people find it right. For this case, there must be something wrong. Then the domino effect continues. If ako ang parent I would still blame my child for doing such thing. I will not tolerate the situation pero pasabton nako nga not all in our everday lives nindot ang mahitabo. Nga pwede nato ma control tanan, nga pwede nato buhaton unsay atong gusto. Their will be ups and downs. And I will support her on both but mistakes should be learned out of that experience. Accept the penalty if there is for you to become a better you.

Oh come on, We all have skeletons in our closet and dark secrets in our life. Now here's my question and opinion. The STC policy has a flaw. why?

1) It was never mentioned who will police the students and who has the authority to do so even outside the school
2) It was never mentioned and specified that any form of evidence of the violation can be accepted as legit and valid regardless of who presented and reported and submitted the evidence


Mao bitaw ang court naay cross examination sa witness and evidence para ma verify nga legit and valid kay kung illegal pagka acquire ang evidence it will nullify it's validity.

Ok assuming it's the school admins nuns,homeroom adviser and etc... are allowed to report for any violation of the students outside the school granting that these school personnel are able to see the actual acts performed. But with pictures submitted to the school personnel by a different source is a different story, bec. STC personnel have no right to invade a minor persons private life.

whatever evidence was presented, the student's privacy rights outside and inside of the school is under our constitution.

Mao bitaw naay search warrant ang ato LAW sa pinas kay dili maski kinsa ang maka hilabot sa imo mga personal stuffs even your own account sa internet and even cell phone. STC have never thought and preempted their action that it was a violation of privacy of the minor student bec. they (STC) have have no right to invade a persons privacy rights.


tanawa ni Admissibility of Evidence

go to III A.

or here what it says:

III. Principles which exclude relevant or material evidence:


A. The Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence.
1. The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on HOW the evidence is obtained or acquired and not WHAT the evidence proves.

Pag acquire lang daan sa evidence illegal na, nya dapat ang kato girl(s) nga ni submit sa picture(s) will present herself/themselves to further prove the validity of the evidence and explain how she acquired it.


This issue is not anymore about morality of the girls and school's policy. IT'S ABOUT THE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS THAT IS VIOLATED.

Mao bitaw na nga klarohon gyud ang school policy sa tanan schools nga dili mo violate or contradict sa PHILIPPINE LAW.

[Allucard]

schools have policy but what part privacy outside should they not step boundaries? does their policy go beyond outside the school to say more than parents responsibility? it is their parents right and responsibity outside of school di ba? so as a parent if i think this is right or wrong outside akung responsibilty to repremand my children....but when did the school go far sa ilang actions? should the school talk to the parents first before the children then both agree on an action and act like adults.
the school did act like a 16 year kid on repremanding the students instead the school should be the second parents and the parents should have meet with the school. also the lawyer for the school may have passed the bar but is not mature enough to think properly "i am here to defend and/or protect my clients" if my client killed a person am i here to protect my client for his/her actions...society has evolved and bisan aku have very difficult understanding this young generation and can not connect or relate to them but sad to say this children will be our future...to say what is right and wrong....remember that we could only work 9am to 5pm....now there are call centers that work even 4am and over....who say's it is bad? kita kug many people with tatoo and who say's they are bad people? i see gay's and lesbian's and who is to tell them it is bad? one time i was in church in redemptorist and the priest on that sunday was saying that gay's and lesbian's will go to hell for their actions....some gay men got hurt and left.....i know san carlos and sacred heart never discriminate .....if the school has a problem of who the parents handle their children outside shouldn't they confront the parents and not the students? i see the maturity of STC going down the drain...as for the students only the parents can say what is right and wrong since they know what is life and have gone through ups and downs....professionally the school should have done it no matter what but kapoy to document the report and now this problem....this facebook thing.....it is a private thing diba.....so when does a school go beyond borders to say....they could not document or make a report because this is an invation of privacy which even we have a problem here in the philippines....the judge i believe will quit (for two reasons).....because we are a chirstian and catholic country and are affraid of the church's actions so like fr. javier to wash his hands and say "how i wish this did not happened" and not say anything would have weakened the church here in cebu and it's followers to know that the church has some politics inside as well....if fr. dakay would have said something.....bisag sakit iyang ma ingung......he would have been a great leader....sad to say they keep in in bay kay even the church here in cebu would have been scared to let him say his thoughts on this matter. As for the judge....what is you conviction?...emotionaly he is impared to act....then the judge is more than a priest for his actions because he knows what it is to convict and to forgive (the judge shows maturity in the matter since he has seen in all in his SALA)......my respect to this kind of men in cebu....i hope they will stay and go up in the ranks but somehow the law and church do have some politics inside.

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

@ JUKNO ...

The privacy issue here is laid in public consumption man gyud . In the case kung mo stick gyud ta sa issue na gi invade ang privacy sa girl then it is not right to point fingers sa school gihapon , why ? Ang nag trigger ana is the person who reported the pcitures . So kung PRIVATE gyud to ang pic then ang ni report mao ang ni invade but the case here is that , one of the following would apply :

- Maka view ang ni report sa FB wall sa girl
- Gi tag ang ni report sa pic na gi post sa girl

Therefore dili siya PRIVATE kay makita man siya to certain people who has all the right to report it to ahthorities if they find offensive maski ang real reason gyud is suya suya lang cguro . The point is , the girl ang ni duol sa school looking for trouble . mao na ni define kinsya mo police nila outside , actually wala gyud . Ayaw lang pod pasakop and that was the case ngano na trouble ang girls , nagpasakop sila by posting pics in FB .

Ang nahitabo karon puro na ni TECHNICALITIES but to make it really simple lang gyud and wala nay dgahan che che burichi bitaw .

Ngano mo end up man ni ug ingon ani ? We all know and everyone agrees that as a minor , it is illegal and an offense to smoke and consume alcoholic drinks . Maski posing posing in the camera na sexually provocative in nature is i waive na lang . Still they VIOLATED and some people still dont get this .

Let the lawyers do their thing sa technicalities between the school and the court . Humana man ang school and girls , nahatulan man sila by not able to attend the graduation rites .

@ALLUCARD ...

Yes you are right , the school should just have whispered " Mga inday , dont do it again ha , it is bad man " . I really dont want to say this but for the consumption of all , if to the point that we disagree with the school sa issue karon , we are basically saying also that " it is ok ang gi buhat sa girls and we are like that too . Our parents are also like that when it comes to raising up children . "

WAKE UP PEOPLE !!

[siobhan kelly]

i believe that there is no absolute privacy in the internet. Take note, not all ur friends in fb are ur true or real friends. If ur friends in fb can see ur pic, there is a tendency that he or she will save the pic and uplod it publicly.. take note anyone can simply right click the pic, click save as and save the pic..