Barred from graduation rites, CA sustains dismissal of case

CEBU, Philippines - The Court of Appeals 18th division has dismissed the petition for certiorari questioning the Regional Trial Court decision on the case involving five minors barred from attending their graduation rites in 2012 for posting obscene photos on Facebook.

The appellate court upheld RTC Branch 17 Judge Silvestre Maamo’s decision in disallowing the intervention of two parents in the original civil case for injunction and damages filed against Saint Theresa’s College.

“Maamo could not be faulted in declaring that the intervention is no longer proper at this stage considering that the main case for injunction and damages has been withdrawn by the original plaintiffs and deemed terminated by virtue of a judgment compromise,” the appellate court ruled.

In a 10-page decision penned by Associate Justice Renato Francisco, the CA ruled that with the dismissal of the principal action, the action in intervention can no longer be acted upon.

In other words, intervention sought by petitioners has no more leg to stand on because of the dismissal of the principal action for injunction and damages.

Francisco, however, explained that Maamo’s dismissal of the intervention did not preclude the petitioners from filing a separate action against the school.

“As correctly ruled by the respondent RTC, the denial of their motion to intervene does not necessarily prejudice their rights which they seek to be enforced as they can be fully asserted and ventilated in a separate proceeding,” Francisco’s ruling states.

Francisco said that intervention is normally not permitted if the intervenor’s rights can be fully protected in a separate proceeding.

“To reiterate, the allowance or disallowance of a motion for intervention rests on the sound discretion of the court after consideration of the appropriate circumstances. It is not an absolute right. The procedure to secure the right to intervene is to a great extent fixed by the statue or rule, and intervention can, as a rule, be secured only in accordance with the terms of the applicable provision,” the decision reads.

The petitioners, whose children were among the five graduating high school students barred by STC to march during the graduation ceremony after they were found guilty of violating the school policy, wanted to intervene in the case filed by another parent against the school officials.

 But, their motion for intervention was dismissed by Maamo. The parents elevated the case before the appellate court by questioning Maamo’s decision.

The petitioners claimed that they have the right to be protected when their daughters were not allowed to join in the graduation rites. — (FREEMAN)