Parents bring STC graduation issue to Court of Appeals

CEBU, Philippines - After their motion for reconsideration was denied, the parents of the students who were barred from  attending their graduation rites at the St. Theresa’s College last year appealed their case before the Court of Appeals.

The parents, through lawyer Cornelio Mercado, filed a petition for certiorari asking the appellate court to “set aside and declare null and void” the decision of Judge Silvestre Maamo of Regional Trial Court Branch 17.

Earlier, Maamo denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the parents reiterating that the motion for intervention filed by them remains unresolved.

 â€œIt 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 reads.

In their eight-page petition, Mercado highlighted that they could no longer be called intervenors to the fact that their intervention has already been admitted by the first handling Judge Wilfredo Navarro, when he issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the school and allowing the five students to participate in their commencement exercises.

Mercado likewise questioned the dismissal of their amended complaint. The amended complaint was filed right after the school defied the TRO. However, the court allegedly labeled their amended complaint as amended complaint-in-intervention.

Moreover, Mercado said the “assailed orders” of the trial court “promotes injustice.”

“The petitioners (especially minors) suffered the sad plight of being stripped of their right to join the graduation march because of private respondents’ proclaimed righteousness to exact obedience to rules.

Petitioners sought judicial relief and were granted the TRO but it was defied evincing private respondents’ skewed concept of the rule of law. RTC 19 minced no word in saying (inhibition order) that the defiance put mockery and to extreme public ridicule not only this court but the entire judiciary,” the petition reads.

With that, Mercado asked the appellate court to direct the respondent trial court to declare private respondents in default and consequently to proceed with the trial and reception of petitioner’s evidence.

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.

Named respondents were Maamo, 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 their counsel, the parents filed a motion seeking for the reconsideration of the resolution of the court dated Dec. 3, 2012 dismissing their amended complaint.

Maamo dismissed the complaint citing it was improper in the 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 Navarro of RTC Branch 19.

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. (FREEMAN)