STC CASE: Motion for reconsideration denied

CEBU, Philippines - “This court still remains not persuaded.”

This was the ruling of Judge Silvestre Maamo of Regional Trial Court Branch 17 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the parents of the minors who were barred from attending their graduation rites at St. Theresa’s College last year.

The minors were graduating students of the STC High School Department. However, for allegedly posting “obscene” photos in a social networking site, the said minors were barred from participating in their commencement exercises.

Maamo, in his two-page order, reiterated that the motion for intervention filed by the plaintiffs remains unresolved. This was contrary to the claim of the plaintiffs that they should no longer be considered intervenors.

“It must be pointed out, and as borne by the records, that movants were not the original plaintiffs in this case. In fact, they filed an ex-parte motion to intervene on Mar. 26, 2012. Such motion had remained unresolved. Thus, it behooves upon this court to resolve such pending incident,” the order read.

Named defendants were STC principal Sr. Celeste Ma. Purisima Pe, student affairs moderator Marnie Racaza, discipline in-charge Kristine Rose Ligot and homeroom adviser Edita Josephine Yu.

Earlier, through lawyer Cornelio Mercado, the parents filed a motion seeking for the reconsideration of the resolution of the court dated Dec. 3, 2012 dismissing their amended complaint-in-intervention.

Maamo dismissed the complaint citing it was improper in this case. He, however, told the intervenors that they can still seek another remedy by instituting a separate action.

But Mercado said in their motion that the amended complaint was not a complaint-in-intervention and the plaintiffs should not be in any way called intervenors because their intervention has already been affirmed by Judge Wilfredo Navarro of RTC Branch 19, the first handling judge.

“Indeed, after submission of Memorandum, Judge Navarro treated the vital and substantial aspect of the controversy and found that defendants violated plaintiff’s rights and thus issued the temporary restraining order (TRO) directing defendants to allow the two minors (plaintiffs) to participate in the commencement exercise. Plaintiffs are definitely parties in CEB-38594,” the motion reads.

Mercado added the analysis of the court that the urgent ex-parte motion to intervene was overlooked and remained un-acted and unresolved has no basis because their intervention has already been acknowledged by the first handling judge.

Last year, the STC imposed a sanction against their students for violating their rules and regulations. However, the students and the parents contested the same by seeking for the issuance of a TRO.

Judge Navarro directed the school and the administration to cease and desist from implementing the sanction against the minors but the school defied the order.

After the issuance of a TRO, Navarro, who handles a regular court, inhibited from handling the case citing he has no jurisdiction. The case was raffled to Judge Manuel Patalinghug who handles family court but the latter remanded the case before the Office of the Civil Division subject the case for re-raffle. Patalinghug said the case belongs to a regular court.

Finally the case was assigned to Maamo who handles a regular court. Maamo ruled the motion for intervention was “overlooked and remained un-acted” due to a conflicting rulings on which court has jurisdiction over the case.

Mercado said yesterday they will be questioning the trial court’s decision before the Court of Appeals.  –(FREEMAN)